Playing the Indian Card

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Pentecost



Jesus was not swallowed by,
But swallowed up a whale.
And then, the sea thing conquered,
Climbed a mast, become a sail.

And he billowed out so wide
That he became the shroud of sky;
And, sum of stars, capsized,
That all the world might die.

And is he dead?
World never knew before such emptiness.
And is he dead? Our only one?
The night wind answered "Yes."

Then lonely Mary, full of grief,
Turned face away from dawn,
And stumbled down the hillside west,
And wandered sightless on.

Until she came to bitter sea,
And sat down there to die.
All before her seemed a flood,
Such flood was in her eye.

And is he dead?
One perfect son, the diamond of the West?
And is he dead? Our only one?
Ocean answered: "Yes."

And Mary saw her life in sand,
And sat upon a stone;
And, hard as mother's lot is hard,
Prayed God to take her home.

And as she looked unseeing out,
Where waves wet tent of night,
She dreamed, where vision blends with hope,
A sail, a nonce thing white.

And does he live?
So small it seemed a foolish thing to pray.
And does he live? A sea-blown dove
Appeared above the spray.

And the sail that billowed out then bore
The image of her son.
Strangely old, yet strangely calm
As Galilee at dawn.

And the sail, in growing nearer,
Grew to fill the Western sky,
With golden sun transfixed in one,
Pale moon in the other eye.

And does he live?
The stone awoke as Virgin rose to pray.
And does he live?
Stone grew a church
That Pentecostal day.
-- Stephen K. Roney



2 comments:

Unknown said...

Catholicism is counterfeit Christianity and you are completely deceived, believing in "another jesus and another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, which will never save you. For example, Boniface VIII proclaimed (circa 1300) that it was, "altogether necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff".
Face it: THAT IS A LIE. You can jump up and down, stand on your head in Macy's window and scream to the moon until you're blue in the face trying to convince us, but it will never be true. Salvation is believing in the merits of Christ alone, period, end of story.
Indeed, Catholicism is a viperous theology that has bitten its members for far too long. Only the anti-venom of Scripture can cure her ills. But she refuses to take the antidote. We are flabbergasted that the laity refuse to wake up out of their spiritual coma and prefer to be lulled to sleep by all of the RCC's unbiblical doctrines! Let's take another example. The RCC has abrogated the original command to partake of BOTH bread and wine, and instead teach Jesus would be pleased we take either one!
WHAT?! NO WAY.
They even teach that the Savior never even OBLIGATED us to consume both elements. Listen to the madness of the Council of Trent: "This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit...declares that lay people...are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at his last supper instituted this sacrament with the form of bread and wine...nevertheless that institution and tradition do not aim at this, that all believers in Christ are bound by the commandment of the Lord to receive both kinds. Neither is it rightly concluded [from the Last Supper or] from the discourse in John 6...that Communion under both kinds is commanded by the Lord” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).
To be sure, these are not the words of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather of MAD SCIENTISTS on the verge of an explosion in the laboratory. They have completely reversed and thrown under the bus our marching orders to partake of BOTH bread and wine, so it is inconceivable they have been divinely commissioned by Jesus Christ to break his own commandments! The Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35), but the Council of Trent has indeed done just that! No reasons whatsoever, no matter how pious they may sound, can justify mutilating the Lord’s Supper down to the choice of either bread OR wine. Jesus did not give us that option! Consequently, since the magisterium is obviously of the devil, the belief that the Messiah was speaking LITERALLY in John 6 and the Last Supper (as it regards eating his flesh) cannot possibly be true. Instead, all the biblical evidence proves he was speaking metaphorically in those places, and oh....should you deny it, I dare you to invite me to debate the issue.

Steve Roney said...

Dear anonymous:

My apologies; it took me a few days to notice and approve your comment. I have had to put this block on commenting because for a while the blog was getting spammed by irrelevant ads.

I would be delighted to enter a dialogue on these matters.

1. Beware of others preaching another Jesus and another Gospel, that differs from the one preached by Paul and the apostles.

Some Protestant version of the gospel may have been the first version you heard, but the first version the world heard was that of the Catholic Church, which traces its lineage back by “apostolic succession” to the apostles. The first Protestant versions popped up five hundred years ago. So it would seem, surely, to be Protestantism which is preaching a new and altered gospel.

2. Boniface VIII and “no salvation without (or outside) the church.”

This is still and has always been the Catholic teaching. But it does not mean that all non-Catholics are damned. It means they are saved through the Church, whether they know it or not. One is necessarily not guilty for failing to be Catholic if one rejects Catholicism out of ignorance of what it really teaches. On the other hand, you are morally obliged to make a sincere effort to seek truth. So you can’t protect yourself by deliberately staying ignorant. This all simply and logically follows if you believe Catholicism is true and is given from God for our salvation. If you seek truth sincerely, you cannot go wrong.

3. Salvation is believing in the merits of Christ alone, period, end of story.

If so, there are no devils in hell. Evil spirits in the New Testament consistently recognize Jesus and who he is.

Obviously, if the devil himself can do as much, this is not enough. Matthew 7:21:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

4. Partaking of both bread and wine.

According to Catholic teaching, both bread and wine must be consecrated at every mass, and it is up to each individual whether he wants to take only one, or both. Perhaps you did not know that. You are welcome to believe that both are essential, and take both. So why a problem? But the Church holds that, while Jesus instructed the apostles to partake of both, and this is binding on the priests as successors to the apostles, he offered himself completely in either, and so it is not necessary for laypeople to take both. God is God: he is perfectly capable of being present entire in either. And it seems unlikely he meant to arbitrarily limit salvation in such a way: for example, offering it only to those who did not have an allergy to either tannins or gluten. Personally, I never take the wine. Too tricky to handle, too must risk of spreading germs.

In John 6, Jesus says:


It is I who am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers, who ate manna in the desert, died none the less; 50 the bread which comes down from heaven is such that he who eats of it never dies. 51 I myself am the living bread that has come down from heaven. 52 If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live for ever. And now, what is this bread which I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world.
If he did not mean the bread alone is sufficient for salvation, he is at least being misleading, surely. Does that sound right?
“the belief that the Messiah was speaking LITERALLY in John 6 and the Last Supper (as it regards eating his flesh) cannot possibly be true.”
There you are. Catholics follow the Bible. Protestants do not. You arbitrarily say “Jesus cannot possibly mean what he says.” And why not?
Granted that some passages in the Bible can be metaphoric and not literal. But you need some reason to assume so. You cannot just say, “I do not like that bit, so I’m going to ignore it.”
This is exactly what the Jews did in the Bible. And Jesus expressly reaffirmed that he was speaking literally: “My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink.” John 6: 56.