John 16:23-28 | |
 | |
Interior of the Church of St. Prix, Valle de Montmorency, Painting by Jean Bruno Gassies (1786–1832), Painted in 1828, Oil on canvas © Musée du Louvre, Paris | |
Gospel Reading | |
Jesus said to his disciples: ‘I tell you most solemnly, anything you ask for from the Father he will grant in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and so your joy will be complete. I have been telling you all this in metaphors, the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in metaphors; but tell you about the Father in plain words. When that day comes you will ask in my name; and I do not say that I shall pray to the Father for you, because the Father himself loves you for loving me and believing that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world and now I leave the world to go to the Father.’ | |
Reflection on the painting | |
In today’s gospel reading, Jesus is very clear about who he is, where he has come from and where he is going. He declares, ‘I came from the Father and have come into the world and now I leave the world to go to the Father’. There is a wonderful sweep to that statement. Jesus speaks of a great journey from God back to God. In a way, this simple statement can be said for all of us: we have all come from the Father and we are on a lifelong journey back towards the Father. This is the essential truth about human life that Jesus has come to reveal to us. Jesus’ journey to the Father helps us to travel our own journey to the Father. He shows us the way to the Father. Indeed, he says of himself, ‘I am the way’. This is the way he sets before all of us: ‘love one another as I have loved you’. That is the way to get back to the Father, through loving each other and being good for one another. In this sense we have to understand the essence of our Christian community: that through loving, we bring each other to the Lord. The problem we sometimes have is that this kind of language doesn't always speak to us. We sometimes find it too pious and we don't connect with it. Yet that is the simple truth of our faith and one we need to connect with at all time: to love one another. The source and summit of our faith is the Eucharist. That is the place where we all congregate to express our love for God, and also for each other. We stand and sit next to strangers at mass, completely united with them by our faith. All are traveling back to our Lord... Our painting by Jean-Bruno Gassies (1786–1832), simply depicts the interior of a church where people are congregating before mass. The two altar servers are having a practice with the thurible. | |
by Father Patrick van der Vorst |
Gene "Fetherlite" Vincent whinged: "The atheistic, pinko/liberal extreme Left did condone and in some cases support the existence of the P.I.E. This vile organisation was affiliated to the NCCL (the epitome of the Left) for almost ten years. Neither you nor Dawkins ever made a protest about its existence."
ReplyDeleteNo, Gene, this is nonsense: simply repeating it will not make it any less nonsensical. Nor will it elide your true purpose in posting it - your total and utter failure to defend the criminal incompetence of Joseph Ratzinger over Father Stephen Keisle.
"The atheistic, pinko/liberal extreme Left" does not exist as a choate body of political and social opinion. A non-existent body can neither condone nor support anyone. Fifty years ago, a number of left wing politicians were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the NCCL To infer from this that they supported the Paedophile Information Exchange is preposterous. Individuals - eg Peter Tatchell - supported the PIE. He spoke for himself, not for the Labour Party. FAIL.
"...the NCCL (the epitome of the Left)...": I have challenged you several times to produce evidence of the political make up of the membership of NCCL and you have not done so - because you can't. Your assertions - that the NCCL is left wing, speaks for the left wing and that, because the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL, and the left wing supports paedophilia is preposterous. FAIL.
"Neither you nor Dawkins ever made a protest about its existence."
And you have never protested about drunk drivers, people shitting in the street, shoplifters or squatters. Does this mean that you support getting pissed and driving into a bus queue? that, after your imaginary kaffee-klatsch you drop your trousers and take a dump in Uxbridge High Street? that you approve folk stripping the shelves in Waitrose without paying? that you will be happy when groups of hippies pitch tents on your lawn? Utter CRAP. FAIL.
"Now you are threatening Gene with taking away his freedom of speech. How typical of the Left. Free speech - but only when it suits us." FAIL
Utter bollocks. Show me where I have said that you not free to write about my wife and family on this blog? You can't, because I haven't. What I have said, and what I repeat, is that if you publish a single word about my wife and family on this blog, then I will circulate such writings to Catholic Church and Catholic educational circles in Uxbridge and West London.
This is not preventing you from writing about them. It is to point out that your exercise of free speech carries responsibilities as well as rights, and that if you exercise those rights using a pseudonym so as to avoid those responsibilities, then the consequences of which you have been warned will follow.
By all means write about my wife and family despite my specific and unequivocal advice that you do not do so. But if you do, do so in the knowledge that you will be made to take the responsibilities that accrue from exercising that right.
You believe in free speech only when it licenses you anonymously and pseudonymously to write libellous filth about people who have annoyed you - such as your scurrilous accusation that I support paedophiles and paedophilia - without suffering any consequences - "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the whore through the ages". That is not "free speech": it is vicious, malicious, cruel bullying and I will have no more of it.
„Detters, ich hatte neulich Nacht einen sehr starken Traum von Delia. Es war so erotisch. Ein bisschen unklar, wie die Dinge im Traum begannen, aber ich erinnere mich noch deutlich daran, als ich ihr gerade eine ordentliche Tracht Prügel gegeben hatte. Nichts Verletzendes ... nur eine kräftige Tracht Prügel.
ReplyDeleteDanach lag Delia auf dem Rücken und sagte:
„Das war wunderbar, Gene … aber jetzt brauche ich wirklich Le Coq Sportif. Ich brauche Fellini in Aktion.“
„Okay, Delia, geh auf Hände und Knie“, befahl ich.
Sie tat es und ich bestieg sie von hinten im Doggystyle.
Wie wir wissen, ist die Doggy-Position Delias Lieblingsstellung.
Hoppla! Entschuldigung ich vergaß. Das würden Sie bei Detters nicht wissen, da Sie Delia nicht „betreuen“.
Tee! Hihi! Hihi! Hihi! Glucksen! Glucksen!"
Das ist keine freie Meinungsäußerung, Gene: Es ist bösartige, gemeine, schmutzige und böswillige Grausamkeit, die man nur zu veröffentlichen wagt, während man sich hinter einem Pseudonym versteckt.
Ich werde nichts mehr davon haben.
« Detters, j'ai fait un rêve très intense à propos de Delia l'autre nuit. C'était tellement érotique. On ne sait pas vraiment comment les choses ont commencé dans le rêve, mais je m'en souviens clairement car je venais de lui donner une bonne fessée. Rien de blessant... juste une bonne fessée.
ReplyDeleteEnsuite Délia s'allongea sur le dos et dit :
« C'était merveilleux, Gene… mais maintenant j'ai vraiment besoin du Coq Sportif. J'ai besoin de Fellini en action.
"D'accord, Delia, mets-toi à quatre pattes," ordonnai-je.
Elle l'a fait et je l'ai montée par derrière en levrette.
On le sait, la position du chien est la position préférée de Délia.
Oops! Désolé j'ai oublié. Vous ne le sauriez pas chez Detters parce que vous ne « vous occupez pas » de Delia.
Thé! Héhé ! Héhé ! Héhé ! Glousser! Glousser!"
Ce n’est pas de la liberté d’expression, Gene : c’est une cruauté vicieuse, vile, sale, malveillante qu’on n’ose publier qu’en se cachant derrière un pseudonyme.
Je n'en aurai plus.
“Detters, ek het die ander nag 'n baie intense droom oor Delia gehad. Dit was so eroties. Dit is nie heeltemal duidelik hoe dinge in die droom begin het nie, maar ek onthou dit duidelik, want ek het hom sopas 'n goeie pak slae gegee. Niks seer nie ... net 'n goeie pak slae.
ReplyDeleteToe gaan lê Delia op haar rug en sê:
“Dit was wonderlik, Gene … maar nou het ek Le Coq Sportif regtig nodig. Ek het Fellini in aksie nodig.
“Goed, Delia, staan handeviervoet,” het ek beveel.
Sy het dit gedoen en ek het haar van agter doggy style gery.
Ons weet dat die hondeposisie Délia se gunstelingposisie is.
Oeps! Jammer ek het vergeet. Jy sal dit nie by Detters weet nie, want jy “sorg” nie vir Delia nie.
Tee! Eh eh! Eh eh! Eh eh! Giggel! Giggel!”
Dit is nie vryheid van uitdrukking nie, Gene: dit is 'n bose, vieslike, vuil, kwaadwillige wreedheid wat ons net durf publiseer terwyl ons agter 'n skuilnaam skuil.
Ek sal nie meer hê nie.
«Detters, είδα ένα πολύ έντονο όνειρο για τη Delia το προηγούμενο βράδυ. Ήταν τόσο ερωτικό. Δεν είναι απολύτως ξεκάθαρο πώς ξεκίνησαν τα πράγματα στο όνειρο, αλλά το θυμάμαι ξεκάθαρα γιατί μόλις του είχα ρίξει ένα καλό χτύπημα. Τίποτα δεν πόνεσε... μόνο ένα καλό χτύπημα.
ReplyDeleteΤότε η Ντέλια ξάπλωσε ανάσκελα και είπε:
«Ήταν υπέροχο, Τζιν… αλλά τώρα χρειάζομαι πραγματικά το Le Coq Sportif. Χρειάζομαι τον Φελίνι σε δράση.
«Εντάξει, Ντέλια, ανέβα στα τέσσερα», διέταξα.
Το έκανε και την καβάλησα από πίσω σκυλάκι.
Γνωρίζουμε ότι η στάση του σκύλου είναι η αγαπημένη θέση της Délia.
Ωχ! Συγγνώμη που ξέχασα. Δεν θα το ήξερες στο Detters, γιατί δεν «φροντίζεις» την Delia.
Τσάι! Αχχ! Αχχ! Αχχ! Νευρικό γέλιο! Νευρικό γέλιο!"
Αυτό δεν είναι ελευθερία έκφρασης, Τζιν: πρόκειται για μια κακή, βρώμικη, βρώμικη, κακόβουλη σκληρότητα που τολμάμε να δημοσιεύσουμε κρυβόμενοι πίσω από ένα ψευδώνυμο.
δεν θα έχω άλλο.
ағылшын тілінен «Деттерс өткен түні мен Делия туралы өте күшті түс көрдім. Бұл сондай эротикалық болды. Түсімде оқиғалардың қалай басталғаны туралы біраз түсініксіз болды, бірақ мен оны жақсы ұрған кезімнен анық есімде. Ешқандай ренжітпейді... тек қатты ұру. Сосын Делия шалқасынан жатып:
ReplyDelete«Бұл керемет Джин болды... бірақ қазір маған Le Coq Sportif өте қажет. Маған Феллини әрекет етуде.
«Жарайды Делия, қолыңды тізе бер» деп бұйырдым.
Ол солай істеді, мен оны артқы Doggy стилінен отырғыздым. Біз білетіндей, Догги позициясы Делианың сүйікті орны. Ой! Кешіріңіз, мен ұмытып қалдым. Сіз Делияның сізге «қызмет көрсетпейтінін» білмейсіз.
Ти! Хе! Хе! Хе! Чортл! Чортл!
“Detters Deliari buruzko amets indartsu bat izan nuen herenegun. Oso erotikoa zen. Lauso samarra ametsetan gauzak nola hasi ziren baina garbi gogoratzen dut kolpe ona eman nion puntutik. Ezer kaltegarririk... kolpe irmo bat besterik ez. Gero Delia bizkarrean etzan zen esanez:
ReplyDelete"Gene zoragarria izan zen... baina orain benetan behar dut Le Coq Sportif. Fellini behar dut ekintzan.
"Ongi Delia, jarri eskuak eta belaunikoak", agindu nion.
Hala egin zuen eta atzeko Doggy estilotik muntatu nuen. Dakigunez Doggy postua Deliaren gogokoena da. Aupa! Barkatu, ahaztu egin zait. Ez zenuke jakingo Dettersek Deliari "zerbitzua" egiten ez diozun bezala.
Kamiseta! Hee! Hee! Hee! Korrika! Korrika!
DETTERLING YOU HAVE LOST IT!
ReplyDelete"Tee! Hihi! Hihi! Hihi! Glucksen! Glucksen!"
Indeed!
Detterling you take the biscuit.
GENE
Absolutely not, Gene, I have nailed you as a two faced bastard of a hypocrite.
DeleteIf I post to your blog your original filth about buggering my wife in English, you have obviously found a way of either blocking it or deleting it more or less instantly.
The seven translations above were all posted, and only when a back-translated item from Kazakh did your block on my free speech work.
You BLEAT about free speech and about how the left wing believe in it only when suits them.
And you do precisely that which of which you accuse the left wing.
A despicable performance by a despicable apology for a disgusting human being.
And as we all know by now "Detterling you take the biscuit." is what you say when you really mean "fuck, he's got me again."
And I repeat: not a word about my wife and family if you want to hold up your head in Uxbridge for the rest of your life.
DeleteOh, and lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteFACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
"A Catholic priest in Co Durham has kept his job despite complaints from parishioners about the “vulgar” sermon he delivered over the Easter weekend.
ReplyDeleteFather Thomas McHale, the priest at Our Blessed Lady Immaculate in Blackhill, Consett, shocked parishioners when he took to the pulpit on Good Friday and told the congregation that Jesus had died with an erection. The local diocese investigated, and upheld a complaint into his conduct.
McHale, 53, who is from America, is understood to have told the congregation, estimated at between 75 and 100 Catholic residents of the former industrial village, that a result of the violent execution method of crucifixion was that blood would have rushed to his lower body.
A parishioner said that the comments were shocking. “He told people Jesus died with an erection,” they said. “The church was shocked. There were young families there.”
A full, or partial, erection has been seen in the corpses of men who have been executed, particularly by hanging. It has also been seen in men who have died with fatal gunshot wounds to the brain stem or spinal cord.
McHale delivered a graphic sermon on Good Friday to a congregation that included young families
McHale delivered a graphic sermon on Good Friday to a congregation that included young families
A spokesman for the diocese of Hexham & Newcastle said in a statement: “A complaint was received and has been investigated in keeping with our diocesan complaints policy. The investigation has been very recently completed and the complaint is upheld.”
McHale, who has been parish priest in Blackhill for more than a decade, is still working at the same parish, according to a parish newsletter."
Sounds like the sort of brainless idiot whose arse you would kiss, Gene.
Totally shocking! Only the atheistic, pinko/liberal extreme Left would attempt to defend this. I will check things out on this. It sounds to me like something you have made up.
DeleteGENE
More demented nonsense about the non existent atheistic pinko liberal extreme left. What the hell do they have to do with Catholic priest who is also, like you, a barmy and ignorant bellend.
DeleteYes, sadly its true. Unbelievable. Just a s bad as someone saying we do not know what Jesus thought about sodomy!
ReplyDeleteGENE
We don’t. You pretend to, but everyone knows that you just make stuff up that chimes with your pig ignorant bigotry.
DeleteI didn't make up that you wrote that we do not know how Jesus would have viewed sodomy. Disgraceful!
DeleteGENE
Quote me the gospel text where Christ condemns sofomy.
ReplyDeleteYou can’t because he doesn’t.
Never heard of sofomy. (Maybe it means having sex on sofas!) But Jesus did condemn fornication. Sodomy is the most vile form of fornication.
DeleteWhere did Jesus define sodomy as the worst kind of fornication? Chapter and verse please.
DeleteAnd please don’t make a TIT of yourself by repeating your original lie only louder AGAIN.
Jesus never said a word about homosexuality or about anal intercourse, whether homo- or heterosexual. If he did then give us chapter and verse.
Do you think that Jesus would have had to even mention homosexual acts? In the Jewish faith the notion of such activity was anathema. He never mentioned bestiality either. Did that mean he did not condemn bestiality?
ReplyDeleteBut, Saint Paul said loud and clearly: NO SODOMITES SHALL EVER ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. And Saint Paul was the teacher of the faith par excellence.
GENE
No, Gene, stop trying to bluster your way out of the trap you made for yourself, you incompetent buffoon. I asked you to publish the chapter and verse of the Gospel where Jesus condemns sodomy [or indeed homosexuality]. You couldn't, and you can't, because he condemned neither.
DeleteYou then claimed that he must have done, because he "...did condemn fornication. Sodomy is the most vile form of fornication."
The only thing that Jesus said about fornication is to be found Matthew 5:32, which reads "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and. whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
This does not condemn fornication as such, but rather allows that a husband may divorce his wife on the grounds of her sexual infidelity without causing either of them to commit adultery in a subsequent marriage.
Above all Christ does not provide us with a taxonomy of sexual misdemeanour whereby anal intercourse [including consensual heterosexual anal intercourse] is even defined as fornication, much less condemned as the worst variety of it.
"Do you think that Jesus would have had to even mention homosexual acts?"
What I think is irrelevant. You claim that Jesus condemned anal sexual intercourse as the worst kind of fornication and I asked you to give me the chapter and verse reference of where he did so. And you can't, because he didn't. You can't make stuff up and then expect not to be challenged to provide evidence.
"In the Jewish faith the notion of such activity was anathema. He never mentioned bestiality either. Did that mean he did not condemn bestiality?"
"In the Jewish faith the notion of such activity was anathema."
And Jesus said that he came to fulfil the law, and that the law therefore could now pass away, as we would live under the law of Christ, not of Moses. Not to mention his well attested crimes under Mosaic law of blasphemy, of the symbolic consumption of blood, his refusal of Mosaic dietary laws [Mark 7:19], overturning the money-changers' tables in the temple, breaking bread with sinners, not washing his hands before eating, and the over-riding blasphemy of forgiving the sins of others.
No, Gene, the "Jesus the Jew" ploy is a non-starter.
But the clanger that made me laugh until I cried was this:
"He never mentioned bestiality either. Did that mean he did not condemn bestiality?"
Once more, Gene "Fetherlite" Vincent takes careful aim and shoots himself in both feet.
Not long ago, you fuckwitted OAF, you spent three weeks trying to smear me as a supporter of paedophilia by repeatedly asking this question:
"Did Detterling ever, even once, over the years denounce the PIE? Of course not!"
by which you meant to imply, because I had not denounced the PIE, that I supported it.
And now you have finally acknowledged the completely bogus nature of that grubby tactic by pointing out that, just because Christ did not denounce bestiality we cannot infer that he supported it.
In the same way, you should acknowledge [but you won't, because you are such a contemptible little weasel] that your attempt to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange using that sleazy tactic was the act of a complete sod.
"But, Saint Paul said loud and clearly: NO SODOMITES SHALL EVER ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. And Saint Paul was the teacher of the faith par excellence."
In this case, St Paul is a complete irrelevance. You claimed that Christ condemned anal sexual intercourse and homosexuality, and have completely failed to produce any evidence from the Gospels for this claim.
[continued]
Nor was St Paul "the teacher of the faith par excellence." He was, like you, a bigot unable to countenance disagreement and an overweening bully. He was also the archetypal sexual inadequate unable to live down his prurient fascination with the sexuality he had never dared to confront. And his opinions about homosexuality and homosexuality have absolutely no basis in the the gospels of Christ, as you have just demonstrated by your complete failure to evidence them. And I am not the only one who thinks that St Paul corrupted Christianity into a creed that could sit well with canting bigots like you. Read and learn, Gene:
DeleteThomas Jefferson: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. He reduced Jesus's ministry to his death and resurrection, and sought to impose his own rules."
Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul: "True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ: "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Robert Frost: "Paul he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin: "The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sun-baked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul."
Martin Buber: "The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul."
Kahlil Gibran: "This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know."
Mahatma Gandhi: "I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience."
Carl Jung: "Saul's fanatical resistance to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw: "There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus. . . . There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus. . . . It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus. . . . was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."