Beware These 3 Lavender Mafias Outside the Church
Sep 16, 2018 02:15:51 #
09/14/2018 Beware These 3 Lavender Mafias Outside the Church
Benjamin Wiker
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/benjamin-wiker/the-lavender-mafias#.W51PHRYpDDs.
We need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist.
At Harvard, in Hollywood, and especially in the Catholic Church
Yes, you read that correctly. Lavender Mafias—the plural.
The coercive network of homosexualization that has gained so much power within the Catholic Church hierarchy is just one of a number.
To understand more fully the current crisis in the Church, we need to be aware of them all, since they all work together toward a homosexualization of the culture.
That there is such a thing as a Lavender Mafia in the Church used to be a rumor, but with the seedy revelations of the rise of Theodore McCarrick to the cardinalate, it’s now an established fact.
Only the existence of a widespread network of protection and coercion in the highest reaches of the Church hierarchy.
Could explain McCarrick’s ongoing power and prestige despite the fact that his homosexual proclivities were widely known among his fellow bishops and cardinals.
Only such a network could make sense of McCarrick’s curial Teflon coating under Pope Francis’ watch that kept sanctions from sticking to him but not honors and advancements.
But if any doubt remains about the existence of a Lavender Mafia within the Church, the deeper investigation into the McCarrick affair called for by an increasing number of bishops and a flood of the laity.
Will reveal exactly how deep and wide such a network really is.
One suspects that’s why there is so much stalling among the bishops, the cardinals and the Vatican.
Psychology
There’s also a Lavender Mafia that’s taken over the professional discipline of psychology, and this takeover has been a great support for the effort to homosexualize the Church.
(An excellent summary of what happened to psychology can be found in Robert Reilly’s Making Gay Okay.)
The basic story is as follows.
Prior to 1973 the American Psychological Association’s authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) defined homosexuality as a “sexual deviation.”
That is, a sexual disorder (putting it more or less in line with the Catholic Church’s definition).
As with their account of other sexual disorders, the APA’s assessment was built upon actual clinical experience and psychological studies.
But in the early 1970s homosexual activists decided that the APA’s negative classification of homosexuality had to go (the pro-gay psychiatrists working from within the APA, calling themselves the GayPA).
Homosexual activists disrupted the 1970 national meeting of the APA in San Francisco, and the 1971 national meeting in Washington, D.C.
The gay advocates did not present any new scientific evidence to support their desires.
They simply thugged up the meeting by shouting out their demands.
The goal: to bully-shame the APA into officially affirming homosexuality as natural.
The president-elect of the APA for 1973, Dr. John Spiegel, was a gay sexagenarian who had a penchant for very young male paramours (although not openly, until his wife died).
Small wonder that at the 1973 APA national meeting in Hawaii, gay advocates got together with those in charge of the DSM’s nomenclature.
And wrote up a new definition of homosexuality, declaring that it was (suddenly) not a sexual disorder, but perfectly natural.
That’s how the discipline of psychology threw its considerable weight behind the gay cause.
Again, this enormous change was not the result of scientific research, but political bullying.
Now psychiatrists and psychologists cannot even raise any questions about homosexuality.
They are forbidden to treat anyone who requests help in overcoming homosexual desires and activity.
The APA Lavender Mafia’s hold is complete.
It has declared as a settled fact that homosexuality is just as natural and healthy as heterosexuality, even though the “fact” was not settled by any science.
It’s not difficult to see how this transformation in psychology aided the homosexualization of the Catholic Church hierarchy.
If it is a “fact” that homosexual desire is natural then the Catholic Church’s moral classification of it as a disorder is scientifically wrong.
Further, if homosexual desire is morally equivalent to heterosexual desire, then admitting homosexuals to the priesthood should not result in clerical disorder.
But it did—enormous disorder.
The current scandals are the sad result of this experiment in redefining sexuality by fiat.
The sexual disorder we have only begun to uncover in the priesthood is the best body of evidence proving the Church’s original position that homosexuality is a disorder of natural heterosexuality.
Academia
Are there other important Lavender Mafias?
Yes, but space does not permit me to do much beyond note their existence.
A very powerful one exists in academia.
I first ran up against it when I was in graduate school at Vanderbilt University in the mid-1980s.
By then, the pro-gay (or, more accurately, pro-lesbian) contingent was so firmly entrenched in the academic hierarchy that.
As with many other graduate schools—one was forbidden to say anything other than the party line.
Gays and lesbians were actively recruited as both students and faculty, thereby ensuring that the academic Mafia only became more powerful over time.
This pattern exists among almost all of the top universities (and the bottom and middle as well), and contributes powerful intellectual support to the gay agenda in the Church (especially given that so many Catholic universities are indistinguishable from secular universities).
Imagine my “surprise” to find out that Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, got his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt.
Liew claims that Jesus was a gender-fluid drag queen, and that washing his disciples’ feet was a homoerotic experience.
Blasphemy with tenure.
Hollywood
An equally powerful Lavender Mafia exists in the entertainment industry (along with an equally disordered heterosexual culture, as the #metoo movement has revealed).
In parallel to the Church, the result has been the regular preying of homosexual men upon vulnerable boys, the systematic covering up of this widespread evil, and the threatening of anyone who dares to bring it to light.
To get a disgusting taste of the evil ways of this network and what it does to those who threaten it, just google “Elijah Wood Hollywood Pedophilia” and read the first 10 or so articles.
Wood (who played Frodo in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) spoke up publicly about the powerful pedophilia ring in Hollywood one day, and the next, retracted his statements.
All it took was a threatening phone call to make poor Frodo cringe before the ring.
So far, unlike the Church’s scandal, Hollywood has been able to keep the lid from being blown off its pedophilia problem.
The Hollywood connection is important because it has so publicly advocated for the homosexualization of culture by producing a significant number of very popular pro-gay comedy shows (such as Will & Grace and Modern Family).
That drilled in the message that homosexuality was as good, clean, witty, fun and moral as heterosexuality.
In short, “no disorder here, folks.”
Although these popular shows postdate the subversion of the Church by the Lavender Mafia, they helped to reinforce the assumptions that led to the scandals.
After all, if two gay men on the screen could fulfill the moral requirements of heterosexual marriage (life-long, exclusive monogamy aimed at childrearing).
Then single gay men in the Church could fulfill the requirements of clerical celibacy.
Right?
The problem with this idyllic presentation by Hollywood is that actual gay sexual culture doesn’t look like that.
It looks like what’s now being uncovered in the scandals at all levels in the Catholic Church.
That’s one of the reasons that Hollywood (and the Left in general) are not very keen to dig into the Church’s current moiling sexual mess.
It reveals the reality of gay sexual culture that they’ve so carefully hidden from sight.
And that is one very good reason why we need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist, but most especially in the Church.
Benjamin Wiker
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/benjamin-wiker/the-lavender-mafias#.W51PHRYpDDs.
We need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist.
At Harvard, in Hollywood, and especially in the Catholic Church
Yes, you read that correctly. Lavender Mafias—the plural.
The coercive network of homosexualization that has gained so much power within the Catholic Church hierarchy is just one of a number.
To understand more fully the current crisis in the Church, we need to be aware of them all, since they all work together toward a homosexualization of the culture.
That there is such a thing as a Lavender Mafia in the Church used to be a rumor, but with the seedy revelations of the rise of Theodore McCarrick to the cardinalate, it’s now an established fact.
Only the existence of a widespread network of protection and coercion in the highest reaches of the Church hierarchy.
Could explain McCarrick’s ongoing power and prestige despite the fact that his homosexual proclivities were widely known among his fellow bishops and cardinals.
Only such a network could make sense of McCarrick’s curial Teflon coating under Pope Francis’ watch that kept sanctions from sticking to him but not honors and advancements.
But if any doubt remains about the existence of a Lavender Mafia within the Church, the deeper investigation into the McCarrick affair called for by an increasing number of bishops and a flood of the laity.
Will reveal exactly how deep and wide such a network really is.
One suspects that’s why there is so much stalling among the bishops, the cardinals and the Vatican.
Psychology
There’s also a Lavender Mafia that’s taken over the professional discipline of psychology, and this takeover has been a great support for the effort to homosexualize the Church.
(An excellent summary of what happened to psychology can be found in Robert Reilly’s Making Gay Okay.)
The basic story is as follows.
Prior to 1973 the American Psychological Association’s authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) defined homosexuality as a “sexual deviation.”
That is, a sexual disorder (putting it more or less in line with the Catholic Church’s definition).
As with their account of other sexual disorders, the APA’s assessment was built upon actual clinical experience and psychological studies.
But in the early 1970s homosexual activists decided that the APA’s negative classification of homosexuality had to go (the pro-gay psychiatrists working from within the APA, calling themselves the GayPA).
Homosexual activists disrupted the 1970 national meeting of the APA in San Francisco, and the 1971 national meeting in Washington, D.C.
The gay advocates did not present any new scientific evidence to support their desires.
They simply thugged up the meeting by shouting out their demands.
The goal: to bully-shame the APA into officially affirming homosexuality as natural.
The president-elect of the APA for 1973, Dr. John Spiegel, was a gay sexagenarian who had a penchant for very young male paramours (although not openly, until his wife died).
Small wonder that at the 1973 APA national meeting in Hawaii, gay advocates got together with those in charge of the DSM’s nomenclature.
And wrote up a new definition of homosexuality, declaring that it was (suddenly) not a sexual disorder, but perfectly natural.
That’s how the discipline of psychology threw its considerable weight behind the gay cause.
Again, this enormous change was not the result of scientific research, but political bullying.
Now psychiatrists and psychologists cannot even raise any questions about homosexuality.
They are forbidden to treat anyone who requests help in overcoming homosexual desires and activity.
The APA Lavender Mafia’s hold is complete.
It has declared as a settled fact that homosexuality is just as natural and healthy as heterosexuality, even though the “fact” was not settled by any science.
It’s not difficult to see how this transformation in psychology aided the homosexualization of the Catholic Church hierarchy.
If it is a “fact” that homosexual desire is natural then the Catholic Church’s moral classification of it as a disorder is scientifically wrong.
Further, if homosexual desire is morally equivalent to heterosexual desire, then admitting homosexuals to the priesthood should not result in clerical disorder.
But it did—enormous disorder.
The current scandals are the sad result of this experiment in redefining sexuality by fiat.
The sexual disorder we have only begun to uncover in the priesthood is the best body of evidence proving the Church’s original position that homosexuality is a disorder of natural heterosexuality.
Academia
Are there other important Lavender Mafias?
Yes, but space does not permit me to do much beyond note their existence.
A very powerful one exists in academia.
I first ran up against it when I was in graduate school at Vanderbilt University in the mid-1980s.
By then, the pro-gay (or, more accurately, pro-lesbian) contingent was so firmly entrenched in the academic hierarchy that.
As with many other graduate schools—one was forbidden to say anything other than the party line.
Gays and lesbians were actively recruited as both students and faculty, thereby ensuring that the academic Mafia only became more powerful over time.
This pattern exists among almost all of the top universities (and the bottom and middle as well), and contributes powerful intellectual support to the gay agenda in the Church (especially given that so many Catholic universities are indistinguishable from secular universities).
Imagine my “surprise” to find out that Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, got his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt.
Liew claims that Jesus was a gender-fluid drag queen, and that washing his disciples’ feet was a homoerotic experience.
Blasphemy with tenure.
Hollywood
An equally powerful Lavender Mafia exists in the entertainment industry (along with an equally disordered heterosexual culture, as the #metoo movement has revealed).
In parallel to the Church, the result has been the regular preying of homosexual men upon vulnerable boys, the systematic covering up of this widespread evil, and the threatening of anyone who dares to bring it to light.
To get a disgusting taste of the evil ways of this network and what it does to those who threaten it, just google “Elijah Wood Hollywood Pedophilia” and read the first 10 or so articles.
Wood (who played Frodo in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) spoke up publicly about the powerful pedophilia ring in Hollywood one day, and the next, retracted his statements.
All it took was a threatening phone call to make poor Frodo cringe before the ring.
So far, unlike the Church’s scandal, Hollywood has been able to keep the lid from being blown off its pedophilia problem.
The Hollywood connection is important because it has so publicly advocated for the homosexualization of culture by producing a significant number of very popular pro-gay comedy shows (such as Will & Grace and Modern Family).
That drilled in the message that homosexuality was as good, clean, witty, fun and moral as heterosexuality.
In short, “no disorder here, folks.”
Although these popular shows postdate the subversion of the Church by the Lavender Mafia, they helped to reinforce the assumptions that led to the scandals.
After all, if two gay men on the screen could fulfill the moral requirements of heterosexual marriage (life-long, exclusive monogamy aimed at childrearing).
Then single gay men in the Church could fulfill the requirements of clerical celibacy.
Right?
The problem with this idyllic presentation by Hollywood is that actual gay sexual culture doesn’t look like that.
It looks like what’s now being uncovered in the scandals at all levels in the Catholic Church.
That’s one of the reasons that Hollywood (and the Left in general) are not very keen to dig into the Church’s current moiling sexual mess.
It reveals the reality of gay sexual culture that they’ve so carefully hidden from sight.
And that is one very good reason why we need to reveal and remove the Lavender Mafias wherever they exist, but most especially in the Church.
Sep 16, 2018 07:16:55 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
Doc110 wrote:
09/14/2018 Beware These 3 Lavender Mafias Outside ... (show quote)
Exceptional post. Thank you for posting it. By the way "Making Gay OK" is a MUST read for all fighting the anti science anti God and anti morality . I have a copy but , since I haven't been able to find another copy, will not pass it on, as I often do
Just found a used copy on Abe books, hard cover for $11.00 including shipping, in case you are interested in learning about what the activists have done, are now doing, and plan to do in the future.
Sep 17, 2018 16:18:18 #
Peewee
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Doc sometimes you make me sooooooo mad I could bite nails in half, today you got it 100% right! I hope you start the clean up on aisle one, the Vatican, then we can move to the other three. We must blow up the factory with locations around the world producing this sickness. While you're at it why don't you guys do a full reformation? Get rid of all the pagan stuff, move the Sabbath back to Saturday, stop calling clergy Father, and let priest marry. You know, follow the gospel of Jesus, not the Popes, Jesuits, or traditions.
I see great similarities between the Sanhedrin and the Catholic church, a thirst for money and power above the flock.
I see great similarities between the Sanhedrin and the Catholic church, a thirst for money and power above the flock.
Sep 17, 2018 16:39:08 #
Peewee,
How are your teeth doing ? And how about your anti-Catholic mental status ? it's okay to hit a wall if your upset and mad . . . But . . . ?
May I suggest you read, listen to a beautiful Catholic Christian spiritual focus article.
"The Imitation of Christ" . . . Part IV, An Invitation to Holy Communion . . . "He that Followeth me, Walketh Not in Darkness," John 8:12
The 5 complete audio files and most importantly the fourth and final section of the "Imitation of Christ."
Which deals with the Eucharist, and sheds light on the Christian devotionals which formed the author's faith.
It's a must read for any Christian, who wants to walk more closely to Christ.
Remember, this book is the second most translated and published book in history, next to the Holy Bible !
It's text and audio version is deeply inspirational and highly conducive to loving and serving and surrendering to God will.
Enjoy and be spiritually inspired.
It could help with your teeth situation and your religious irritable state of mind.
Could I mention to, take a anti-iron pill to combat the steel poisoning of your brain from the nails, and then get a good dentist . . . Hope you have dental insurance.
The Thomas à Kempis’s spiritual classic book, "The Imitation of Christ." Audio and music
Free Audio and music version YouTube, Book IV An Invitation to Holy Communion
1. Book 4, The Imitation of Christ 5 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H58yFpMFoyM&frags=pl%2Cwn
2. Book 3, The Imitation of Christ 3 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiUIz23uAGo&frags=pl%2Cwn
3. Book 3, The Imitation of Christ 4 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE4bhlBMd5w&frags=pl%2Cwn
4. Book 2, The Imitation of Christ 2 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdQbkV0enY&frags=pl%2Cwn
5. Book 1, The Imitation of Christ 1 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8JUgYcjbcM&frags=pl%2Cwn
The Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis’s
a. Free digital written Ebook http://www.catholicexchange.com
b. Free digital written Ebook http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1653
c. Free digital written Ebook http://www.catholicarchive.org/thomas_a_kempis/the_imitation_of_christ/
d. Free digital written Ebook www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" style="word-wrap:break-word;">www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/
It is a beautiful powerful spiritual book is ("Not") written from a dogmatic "point of view," "Do this or God will punish you." This classic is one of the very best daily devotional books you could ever hope to own.
It is very helpful for believers who sometimes need to be reminded of humility, to be imitators of Christ and not be sanctimoniously, and to better to experience true repentance and to further learn about the Jesus and the Trinity, and many daily lessons that we need to be reminded about.
But the book is written in a personal loving writing style that if the reader goes further, it gives an internal logic of its own.
How are your teeth doing ? And how about your anti-Catholic mental status ? it's okay to hit a wall if your upset and mad . . . But . . . ?
May I suggest you read, listen to a beautiful Catholic Christian spiritual focus article.
"The Imitation of Christ" . . . Part IV, An Invitation to Holy Communion . . . "He that Followeth me, Walketh Not in Darkness," John 8:12
The 5 complete audio files and most importantly the fourth and final section of the "Imitation of Christ."
Which deals with the Eucharist, and sheds light on the Christian devotionals which formed the author's faith.
It's a must read for any Christian, who wants to walk more closely to Christ.
Remember, this book is the second most translated and published book in history, next to the Holy Bible !
It's text and audio version is deeply inspirational and highly conducive to loving and serving and surrendering to God will.
Enjoy and be spiritually inspired.
It could help with your teeth situation and your religious irritable state of mind.
Could I mention to, take a anti-iron pill to combat the steel poisoning of your brain from the nails, and then get a good dentist . . . Hope you have dental insurance.
The Thomas à Kempis’s spiritual classic book, "The Imitation of Christ." Audio and music
Free Audio and music version YouTube, Book IV An Invitation to Holy Communion
1. Book 4, The Imitation of Christ 5 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H58yFpMFoyM&frags=pl%2Cwn
2. Book 3, The Imitation of Christ 3 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiUIz23uAGo&frags=pl%2Cwn
3. Book 3, The Imitation of Christ 4 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE4bhlBMd5w&frags=pl%2Cwn
4. Book 2, The Imitation of Christ 2 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdQbkV0enY&frags=pl%2Cwn
5. Book 1, The Imitation of Christ 1 of 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8JUgYcjbcM&frags=pl%2Cwn
The Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis’s
a. Free digital written Ebook http://www.catholicexchange.com
b. Free digital written Ebook http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1653
c. Free digital written Ebook http://www.catholicarchive.org/thomas_a_kempis/the_imitation_of_christ/
d. Free digital written Ebook www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" style="word-wrap:break-word;">www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/
It is a beautiful powerful spiritual book is ("Not") written from a dogmatic "point of view," "Do this or God will punish you." This classic is one of the very best daily devotional books you could ever hope to own.
It is very helpful for believers who sometimes need to be reminded of humility, to be imitators of Christ and not be sanctimoniously, and to better to experience true repentance and to further learn about the Jesus and the Trinity, and many daily lessons that we need to be reminded about.
But the book is written in a personal loving writing style that if the reader goes further, it gives an internal logic of its own.
Peewee wrote:
br br Doc sometimes you make me sooooooo mad, br... (show quote)
Sep 17, 2018 16:47:43 #
Peewee
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Doc110 wrote:
Peewee, br br How are your teeth doing ? And how... (show quote)
I hate the present Catholic Church as much as ever and it appears you have no desire to clean up aisle one, just shift the focus at all cost. Not surprised at all. It's your church's M.O.
Sep 17, 2018 23:10:35 #
Good afternoon,
I'm smiling night now, much to the chagrin and deep sadness to your Protestant viewpoint against the Catholic Church and to my Catholic faith.
I really do wish you you would keep your religious baseless un-factual opinions to yourself.
Personally I find it Religiously insulting and religiously prejudicia and disingenuous.
You really should do some historical Church reading and historical research.
On the practices of the Sacramental historical Church, and its historical evolution and evolving faithful retrospective Church Doctors of the Church and clergy.
We have the Churches ecumenical councils from 312 a.d. to the present day.
That's 1,986 years or 19 centuries of christian writing, by theologians and Church clergy that have written of the completeness of the Catholic Church.
Let me ask you something ?
What is your Protestant affiliation ? How Log ? Your spiritual journey how many churches have you belonged to ?
Do you believe in self-interpreting biblical scripture, and reading the preceding verse and the below passages ? To understand the context of what the author was trying to say ?
Lets discuss what you said in your comment to me.
Other than repeating and giving your misconception on what the actual facts are, and providing detailed facts to support your opinions.
a. First Protestants would rather and usually Quote from Saint Paul,
b. Then the Old Testament
c. Lastly do they quote from the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Sparingly use the exact words that Jesus uses.
1. I'm going to give you that one. But to answer this question, the Catholic Church has always renewed it's self. All the Ecumenical councils Ill just give you the top three in 500 years.
a. The Council of Trent
b. Vatican I
c. Vatican II
2. You see peewee thats your liberal protestant mindset, "To Protest" Just like Calvin, Luther and other reformist, hated the Catholic Church
The reformists created total religious anarchy, which became political, the same thing continues today, except now we have 30,000 protestant denominations.
3. See answer in Question 1.
4. Here is where you are wrong once again.
Read the Article, your taking the term "Father" out of context and look at the biblical passages, you have a minimalist protestant objection.
The Bible, Says Call No Man Father . . . But is that a literal religious seriatim opinion ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-136290-1.html
Even though Christ says “call no man father,” the context is a discussion of religious titles. This is part of a longer biblical passage in which Christ condemns the Pharisees.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/call-no-man-father/?
So here—and specifically in a religious context—Abraham is called “the father of us all.” Moreover, Paul frequently reminds us of his own role as a spiritual father. He is a father to
And he writes to the Corinthians: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”
1 Cor. 4:14–15.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/14.htm
So then, what did Jesus mean by “call no man father”? Matthew 23:9; 1 Peter 1:17
http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-9.htm
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-17.htm
So why are priests celibate?
https://www.uscatholic.org/glad-you-asked/2009/08/...
10 Reasons for Priestly Celibacy - Catholic Exchange
https://catholicexchange.com/10-reasons-for-priest...
5. We Catholics follow The NT of Jesus, and follow Our Popes, traditions, Magisterium the Catechism. Our Church and Faith is more well formed.
6. As to the Scribes Pharisees, Sadducees, orthodox Essenes and Jewish Zealots.
This may take some time, thats because the Church, or is called the Catholic-Universal Church, does not adhere to the books of Moses statutes except the Ten Commandments.
There is a distinction between the Old Hebrew-Israelite covenants.
Jesus has made a New Covenant with his death and resurrection and ascension. The prophesy's of the Old Testament have been fulfilled.
Jesus is fulfilling the New Covenant and this is where he has corrected the Jewish scribes Pharisees, Sadducees, orthodox Essenes and Jewish Zealots.
God's way is not your way, and His thinking is not your way either, peewee.
For you to say the Catholic Church is similar to the Sadducees is a poorly form criticism historical and biblically is in error.
You provide no facts to support you wildest claims. Here is proof below
Under the direct governance of the Romans, the Jews of the First Century were economically exploited, experienced many religious impositions, and were subjected to Pagan views and practices. The political reality of the day was of an unfriendly dominant power overseeing life on a day-to-day basis.
The Hebrew people of this era generally fell into one of three camps in their views of how to cope with this sometimes oppressive oversight: one group wanted to appease the Romans, one group wanted to fight them, and one group just wanted to keep their heads down and go unnoticed.
The Pharisees:
Generally fell into the group of appeasers. They believed that if they could keep the law perfectly that YHWH would return to His people and get rid of the hated Romans for them. Perfect law keeping would bring this about. The Pharisees were the spiritual guides who thought of themselves as superior to those who did not keep the law as perfectly as they did. The Pharisees did not help the poor, or those in need, they simply advised them to do better at keeping the law and YHWH would come
The scribes (Hebrew “sopherim”)
Were experts in the Law of Moses (Torah); they copied it and they explained it. At Jesus’ time, they were very influential and powerful in Jerusalem. They had three distinctive functions: 1) Preserve the Law of Moses (Torah) and its right interpretation; 2) Gather students and teach them; and 3) administer the law as judges in the Sanhedrin (Mt 22:35; Mk 14:43; Lk 22:66; Acts 4:5). The scribes were called “lawyers or teachers of the law.” They also wanted to appease the Romans.
The Sadducees:
had most of the real political and economic power. This party was formed from members of rich families. They were not terribly interested in the kingdom of God or in the coming of the Messiah. They were pragmatists. Their main concern was keeping their social status and the respect of the Romans. Therefore, societal change was dangerous in their eyes, and they did not shrink from using violent means against their countrymen if these countrymen provoked rebellions, or revolts, or disturbed the peace. In their view, there was no other option but appeasing the Romans.
The members of the Great Sanhedrin were rich and powerful men from the aristocratic families in Israel. This council had 71 members, including the High Priest, president of the assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees, and some influential scribes. They often did not agree on much, but they all did pretty much agree on appeasing the Romans.
They were the domestic government of Judea and had authority to deal with matters regarding religion, justice, and the economy. However, the final decision in all the matters depended on the Roman prefect, Pilate.
The High Priests were the highest religious authority in Israel. They belonged to the tribe of Levi and inherited their position. Their responsibility was to take care of the Temple of Jerusalem and organize the system of the sacrifices.
HOW DID THEY SEE THINGS? Maintaining the status quo was primary for all these groups.
The religious authorities believed they were chosen by God, so they also believed their teachings about the Law and the traditions were true and must be obeyed. After the Babylonian captivity, the people’s ability to read Hebrew was mostly gone and they were dependent on their leadership to tell them what God’s will was. The leaders taught the people that acting against them is acting against God—and implicitly it was also acting against Rome. Challenging their teachings and authority, then in their view, was basically urging Israel to abandon God’s authority. Plus it could cause problems with Rome and upset their apple cart.
For these reasons, Jesus is a great threat to them all.
He calls into question their authority; he questions their moral fitness; he questions their motives. From this perspective, the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is inevitable.
But Jesus’ teachings have a divine authority all their own, while the scribes’ teachings are human traditions. Jesus is always right because he “thinks the way God does” while the leaders are always wrong because they “think the way humans do”.
Mark 2:1-12
“Now some scribes were sitting there, and they thought to themselves, how can this man talk like that? He is being blasphemous. Who but God can forgive sins?”
By forgiving the man’s sins, Jesus is trying to heal the whole person (his body and his soul) and not just his body. But the scribes think Jesus is guilty of blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. They think Jesus is pretending to be God and have God’s authority. What your enemies think is sometimes very revealing.
This is one of my favorite scenes in scripture: Jesus demonstrates the error in their thinking by healing the man’s paralysis! Jesus knew forgiving his sins was forever, and therefore it was a much greater gift. This also foreshadows Jesus knowing what forgiveness was going to cost him.
Mark 2:15-17
“When the scribes and the Pharisees saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?
When Jesus heard this he said to them: It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I came to call not the upright, but sinners”.
According to Jewish tradition, whoever eats with sinners becomes an unclean or impure person.
Jesus is saying it doesn’t help the needy to avoid associating with them. The two completely different focuses are readily apparent here.
Mark 2:18-20 John’s the Baptist disciples and the Pharisees were keeping a fast, when some people came and said:
Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?”
The Jews were originally required to fast once a year during the Day of Atonement; then it became four times a year, and by the time of Jesus, the spiritual leaders were fasting twice a week. They considered this evidence of their superior holiness, and Jesus and his disciples did not fast at all.
Jesus explains it with the parable of the wedding, the new cloth on the old cloak, and the new wine in the old wineskins.
The old covenant cannot be repaired, therefore it must give way to the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself and the kingdom of God.
In Mark 2:23-28, “It happened that one Sabbath day he was taking a walk through the grain fields, and his disciples began to make a path by plucking ears of grain. And the Pharisees said to him: Look, why are they doing something on the Sabbath day that is forbidden?”
First he points out that in some circumstances human needs (hunger) are more important than law; people are more important than rules! This was completely opposite of the foundation and focus of their entire lives!
Then he says, the Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath; they have everything upside down and backwards! Furthermore, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath: he has the authority to change the rules! He is claiming an authority the Pharisees and the scribes don’t have and could never have.
Mark 3:1-6:
“They were watching him to see if he would cure him on the Sabbath day, hoping for something to charge him with… The Pharisees went out and began at once to plot with the Herodians against him, discussing how to destroy him.”
Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law because it lacked love and compassion. It made rules more important than people. It not only is not founded upon love, it does not even incorporate the law of love. Jesus instead does what is good and kind and loving: he meets that man’s need and heals him.
We still have this problem today. We also struggle with letting rules be more important than loving people. We want to be good and do what is right but we forget the bottom line.
Mark 3:22-30 “The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying: Beelzebul is in him, and, it is through the prince of devils that he drives devils out…” The fact the scribes were making the effort to come up with some other explanation shows they were really happening.
Jesus responds with logic.
A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand—but this comment is not simply about Satan’s kingdom—this is about Israel and the kingdom of God.
Insulting the Holy Spirit produced a firm reprimand!
In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus gets really confrontational when he confronts the difference between God’s actual intents and purposes and human traditions.
“The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them… Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?”
Jesus is not against washing hands. Using the prophecy of Isaiah 29:13, Jesus response here is really tough!
He accuses the Pharisees and the scribes of being hypocrites: “You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.” He goes on and proves his point. His “proofs” are unanswerable. He is right. He has completely exposed them for what they really are.
THE PRIMARY CONFLICT
When Jesus throws out the moneychangers, he explains later—in a cryptic manner—that he is asserting his authority over the Temple itself. HE is the new Temple.
They ask him, “What authority have you for acting like this? Or who gave you authority to act like this?” And his answer can be summed up in asserting He is the new eschatological Temple and He will be replacing the existing Temple with Himself. He is David’s Lord. He is the priest forever like Melchizadeck. His authority is his
Doc sometimes you make me sooooooo mad,
I could bite nails in half, today you got it 100% right!
1. I hope you start the clean up on aisle one, the Vatican, then we can move to the other three.
We must blow up the factory with locations around the world producing this sickness.
2. While you're at it why don't you guys do a full reformation?
3. Get rid of all the pagan stuff, move the Sabbath back to Saturday.
4. Stop calling clergy Father, and let priest marry.
5. You know, follow the gospel of Jesus, not the Popes, Jesuits, or traditions.
6. I see great similarities between the Sanhedrin and the Catholic church, a thirst for money and power above the flock.
I'm smiling night now, much to the chagrin and deep sadness to your Protestant viewpoint against the Catholic Church and to my Catholic faith.
I really do wish you you would keep your religious baseless un-factual opinions to yourself.
Personally I find it Religiously insulting and religiously prejudicia and disingenuous.
You really should do some historical Church reading and historical research.
On the practices of the Sacramental historical Church, and its historical evolution and evolving faithful retrospective Church Doctors of the Church and clergy.
We have the Churches ecumenical councils from 312 a.d. to the present day.
That's 1,986 years or 19 centuries of christian writing, by theologians and Church clergy that have written of the completeness of the Catholic Church.
Let me ask you something ?
What is your Protestant affiliation ? How Log ? Your spiritual journey how many churches have you belonged to ?
Do you believe in self-interpreting biblical scripture, and reading the preceding verse and the below passages ? To understand the context of what the author was trying to say ?
Lets discuss what you said in your comment to me.
Other than repeating and giving your misconception on what the actual facts are, and providing detailed facts to support your opinions.
a. First Protestants would rather and usually Quote from Saint Paul,
b. Then the Old Testament
c. Lastly do they quote from the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Sparingly use the exact words that Jesus uses.
1. I'm going to give you that one. But to answer this question, the Catholic Church has always renewed it's self. All the Ecumenical councils Ill just give you the top three in 500 years.
a. The Council of Trent
b. Vatican I
c. Vatican II
2. You see peewee thats your liberal protestant mindset, "To Protest" Just like Calvin, Luther and other reformist, hated the Catholic Church
The reformists created total religious anarchy, which became political, the same thing continues today, except now we have 30,000 protestant denominations.
3. See answer in Question 1.
4. Here is where you are wrong once again.
Read the Article, your taking the term "Father" out of context and look at the biblical passages, you have a minimalist protestant objection.
The Bible, Says Call No Man Father . . . But is that a literal religious seriatim opinion ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-136290-1.html
Even though Christ says “call no man father,” the context is a discussion of religious titles. This is part of a longer biblical passage in which Christ condemns the Pharisees.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/call-no-man-father/?
So here—and specifically in a religious context—Abraham is called “the father of us all.” Moreover, Paul frequently reminds us of his own role as a spiritual father. He is a father to
And he writes to the Corinthians: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”
1 Cor. 4:14–15.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/14.htm
So then, what did Jesus mean by “call no man father”? Matthew 23:9; 1 Peter 1:17
http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-9.htm
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-17.htm
So why are priests celibate?
https://www.uscatholic.org/glad-you-asked/2009/08/...
10 Reasons for Priestly Celibacy - Catholic Exchange
https://catholicexchange.com/10-reasons-for-priest...
5. We Catholics follow The NT of Jesus, and follow Our Popes, traditions, Magisterium the Catechism. Our Church and Faith is more well formed.
6. As to the Scribes Pharisees, Sadducees, orthodox Essenes and Jewish Zealots.
This may take some time, thats because the Church, or is called the Catholic-Universal Church, does not adhere to the books of Moses statutes except the Ten Commandments.
There is a distinction between the Old Hebrew-Israelite covenants.
Jesus has made a New Covenant with his death and resurrection and ascension. The prophesy's of the Old Testament have been fulfilled.
Jesus is fulfilling the New Covenant and this is where he has corrected the Jewish scribes Pharisees, Sadducees, orthodox Essenes and Jewish Zealots.
God's way is not your way, and His thinking is not your way either, peewee.
For you to say the Catholic Church is similar to the Sadducees is a poorly form criticism historical and biblically is in error.
You provide no facts to support you wildest claims. Here is proof below
Under the direct governance of the Romans, the Jews of the First Century were economically exploited, experienced many religious impositions, and were subjected to Pagan views and practices. The political reality of the day was of an unfriendly dominant power overseeing life on a day-to-day basis.
The Hebrew people of this era generally fell into one of three camps in their views of how to cope with this sometimes oppressive oversight: one group wanted to appease the Romans, one group wanted to fight them, and one group just wanted to keep their heads down and go unnoticed.
The Pharisees:
Generally fell into the group of appeasers. They believed that if they could keep the law perfectly that YHWH would return to His people and get rid of the hated Romans for them. Perfect law keeping would bring this about. The Pharisees were the spiritual guides who thought of themselves as superior to those who did not keep the law as perfectly as they did. The Pharisees did not help the poor, or those in need, they simply advised them to do better at keeping the law and YHWH would come
The scribes (Hebrew “sopherim”)
Were experts in the Law of Moses (Torah); they copied it and they explained it. At Jesus’ time, they were very influential and powerful in Jerusalem. They had three distinctive functions: 1) Preserve the Law of Moses (Torah) and its right interpretation; 2) Gather students and teach them; and 3) administer the law as judges in the Sanhedrin (Mt 22:35; Mk 14:43; Lk 22:66; Acts 4:5). The scribes were called “lawyers or teachers of the law.” They also wanted to appease the Romans.
The Sadducees:
had most of the real political and economic power. This party was formed from members of rich families. They were not terribly interested in the kingdom of God or in the coming of the Messiah. They were pragmatists. Their main concern was keeping their social status and the respect of the Romans. Therefore, societal change was dangerous in their eyes, and they did not shrink from using violent means against their countrymen if these countrymen provoked rebellions, or revolts, or disturbed the peace. In their view, there was no other option but appeasing the Romans.
The members of the Great Sanhedrin were rich and powerful men from the aristocratic families in Israel. This council had 71 members, including the High Priest, president of the assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees, and some influential scribes. They often did not agree on much, but they all did pretty much agree on appeasing the Romans.
They were the domestic government of Judea and had authority to deal with matters regarding religion, justice, and the economy. However, the final decision in all the matters depended on the Roman prefect, Pilate.
The High Priests were the highest religious authority in Israel. They belonged to the tribe of Levi and inherited their position. Their responsibility was to take care of the Temple of Jerusalem and organize the system of the sacrifices.
HOW DID THEY SEE THINGS? Maintaining the status quo was primary for all these groups.
The religious authorities believed they were chosen by God, so they also believed their teachings about the Law and the traditions were true and must be obeyed. After the Babylonian captivity, the people’s ability to read Hebrew was mostly gone and they were dependent on their leadership to tell them what God’s will was. The leaders taught the people that acting against them is acting against God—and implicitly it was also acting against Rome. Challenging their teachings and authority, then in their view, was basically urging Israel to abandon God’s authority. Plus it could cause problems with Rome and upset their apple cart.
For these reasons, Jesus is a great threat to them all.
He calls into question their authority; he questions their moral fitness; he questions their motives. From this perspective, the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is inevitable.
But Jesus’ teachings have a divine authority all their own, while the scribes’ teachings are human traditions. Jesus is always right because he “thinks the way God does” while the leaders are always wrong because they “think the way humans do”.
Mark 2:1-12
“Now some scribes were sitting there, and they thought to themselves, how can this man talk like that? He is being blasphemous. Who but God can forgive sins?”
By forgiving the man’s sins, Jesus is trying to heal the whole person (his body and his soul) and not just his body. But the scribes think Jesus is guilty of blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. They think Jesus is pretending to be God and have God’s authority. What your enemies think is sometimes very revealing.
This is one of my favorite scenes in scripture: Jesus demonstrates the error in their thinking by healing the man’s paralysis! Jesus knew forgiving his sins was forever, and therefore it was a much greater gift. This also foreshadows Jesus knowing what forgiveness was going to cost him.
Mark 2:15-17
“When the scribes and the Pharisees saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?
When Jesus heard this he said to them: It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I came to call not the upright, but sinners”.
According to Jewish tradition, whoever eats with sinners becomes an unclean or impure person.
Jesus is saying it doesn’t help the needy to avoid associating with them. The two completely different focuses are readily apparent here.
Mark 2:18-20 John’s the Baptist disciples and the Pharisees were keeping a fast, when some people came and said:
Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?”
The Jews were originally required to fast once a year during the Day of Atonement; then it became four times a year, and by the time of Jesus, the spiritual leaders were fasting twice a week. They considered this evidence of their superior holiness, and Jesus and his disciples did not fast at all.
Jesus explains it with the parable of the wedding, the new cloth on the old cloak, and the new wine in the old wineskins.
The old covenant cannot be repaired, therefore it must give way to the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself and the kingdom of God.
In Mark 2:23-28, “It happened that one Sabbath day he was taking a walk through the grain fields, and his disciples began to make a path by plucking ears of grain. And the Pharisees said to him: Look, why are they doing something on the Sabbath day that is forbidden?”
First he points out that in some circumstances human needs (hunger) are more important than law; people are more important than rules! This was completely opposite of the foundation and focus of their entire lives!
Then he says, the Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath; they have everything upside down and backwards! Furthermore, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath: he has the authority to change the rules! He is claiming an authority the Pharisees and the scribes don’t have and could never have.
Mark 3:1-6:
“They were watching him to see if he would cure him on the Sabbath day, hoping for something to charge him with… The Pharisees went out and began at once to plot with the Herodians against him, discussing how to destroy him.”
Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law because it lacked love and compassion. It made rules more important than people. It not only is not founded upon love, it does not even incorporate the law of love. Jesus instead does what is good and kind and loving: he meets that man’s need and heals him.
We still have this problem today. We also struggle with letting rules be more important than loving people. We want to be good and do what is right but we forget the bottom line.
Mark 3:22-30 “The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying: Beelzebul is in him, and, it is through the prince of devils that he drives devils out…” The fact the scribes were making the effort to come up with some other explanation shows they were really happening.
Jesus responds with logic.
A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand—but this comment is not simply about Satan’s kingdom—this is about Israel and the kingdom of God.
Insulting the Holy Spirit produced a firm reprimand!
In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus gets really confrontational when he confronts the difference between God’s actual intents and purposes and human traditions.
“The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them… Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?”
Jesus is not against washing hands. Using the prophecy of Isaiah 29:13, Jesus response here is really tough!
He accuses the Pharisees and the scribes of being hypocrites: “You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.” He goes on and proves his point. His “proofs” are unanswerable. He is right. He has completely exposed them for what they really are.
THE PRIMARY CONFLICT
When Jesus throws out the moneychangers, he explains later—in a cryptic manner—that he is asserting his authority over the Temple itself. HE is the new Temple.
They ask him, “What authority have you for acting like this? Or who gave you authority to act like this?” And his answer can be summed up in asserting He is the new eschatological Temple and He will be replacing the existing Temple with Himself. He is David’s Lord. He is the priest forever like Melchizadeck. His authority is his
Doc sometimes you make me sooooooo mad,
I could bite nails in half, today you got it 100% right!
1. I hope you start the clean up on aisle one, the Vatican, then we can move to the other three.
We must blow up the factory with locations around the world producing this sickness.
2. While you're at it why don't you guys do a full reformation?
3. Get rid of all the pagan stuff, move the Sabbath back to Saturday.
4. Stop calling clergy Father, and let priest marry.
5. You know, follow the gospel of Jesus, not the Popes, Jesuits, or traditions.
6. I see great similarities between the Sanhedrin and the Catholic church, a thirst for money and power above the flock.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.