First Photos of The Holy Land
Galilee and The North
Thanks for your email.
In the popular imagination...
... when you're half white and half black, you're black.
... when you're half white and half Hispanic, you're Hispanic.
... when you're half white and half oriental, you're white.
It's a gradient with three semantic pit stops.
When I originally categorized Eliot Roger as "white," I simply spoke my reaction to his photograph.
Maybe it's because I grew up with Italian-Americans who had the same skin tone as Roger.
Did you know that when Italians first flooded the United States there was a debate as to whether they were black?
Did you know that the single most deadly lynching in the United States was of Italians in New Orleans?
What do you think?
Was Yeshua white?
There has been so much mixing of Jewish blood with "Caucasian" blood -- both in the diaspara and within modern Israel -- that I suspect our sense of "Jewish skin color" is hugely biased in the direction of "white."
Yeshua's Jewish contemporaries probably exhibited the skin color of contemporary Egyptians.
When I entered "Egyptians" in the image.google search box, my first hit was the following collage.
These people are not white.
I would sooner bet my eternal salvation that Jesus was not white than to repeat Laura's bet that Pope Paul IV justifies her apostasy.
Here's Laura's view of Pope Paul IV:
Jorge Bergoglio and the Vacant Throne
IT is an enduring and unshakeable doctrine of the Catholic Church that anyone who rejects part of the faith, even one article of the faith, rejects the whole. Can a non-Catholic, someone who rejects the faith, legitimately be a pope? The answer seems obvious. Nevertheless, it is urgently, now more than ever, in need of articulation.
In 1559, Pope Paul IV proclaimed that a non-Catholic cannot be the Roman Pontiff. His words are a definitive statement on the issue in
general. Paul IV wrote the following in his Apostolic Constitution “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio:
[I]f ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
It is abundantly clear from the many statements Jorge Bergoglio, aka Pope Francis, has made in the six months of his pontificate that he is not a believing Catholic and has not been a believing Catholic for quite some time. His recent interview with La Civilta Cattolica was the most elaborate public clarification of his
convictions. The interview was filled with heresies, blasphemies and outright distortions, all of which were so thick and settled they must have preceded his pontificate. To Bergoglio, the Catholic Church is a “disjointed multitude of doctrines;” a fragile edifice capable of collapse; a religion that has the right to express itself not because it is true but because it is a religion, whatever that means; an institution that has uncharitably interfered in people’s lives; a petty Church unnecessarily obsessed with the greatest moral evils of our time; a bureaucracy of “small-minded rules” that has not made room for the “big heart” of non-believers and the will of the people. Ethics are situational. “We must always consider the person.” Morality changes with time. “In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them.” The divorced woman can go on with her second marriage.
In essence, there is no divine law. “We have to find a new balance.” And, the ancient prayer life of the Church is irreversibly over. Those who adhere to the Church’s ancient liturgy, said Bergoglio, — the insistently judgmental man who condemns judgment, the prideful priest who boasts of his humility, the self-admitted “sinner” who paves the way for the universal denial of sin, the fuzzy-wuzzy Protestant preacher of love who is nasty and malicious to those with whom he disagrees, who just happen to be devout Catholics — are “restorationists” and “legalists” whose “sensitivity” must somehow be borne.
Only if one has doubt is one genuinely Catholic, according to the Bergoglio Heresy, which is not original but is derived from the heresy of Vatican II. There is no theological certainty and theology is inferior to the infallible intuitions of the people. Even Aquinas is a problem. The Church is a dynamic, unfolding process. We have moved beyond the mind and abstract truths. After all, what is the point of theology if there is no truth? It is hardly any surprise that Bergoglio has trouble completing a thought given his difficulty with the very concept of truth.
Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then?
Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate saith to him: What is truth?
If only Bergoglio were as lucid as Pilate. In so many words, Bergoglio has asked the same rhetorical question. What is truth? Or as he put it, in his diffuse, modernist gobbledegook:
..[H]uman self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong…. Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning.
How much clearer can he be? He does not believe in Catholicism. We are without a pope.
We must therefore love our Divine Sovereign and his Mystical Body, the Church, even more. We must therefore discover regions within our hearts, minds and souls that have as yet failed to honor and adore his eternal reign and turn ourselves decisively and without hesitation over to him.
Here's Wikpedia on Pope Paul IV:
As pope his nationalism was a driving force; he used the office to preserve some liberties in the face of fourfold foreign occupation. Initially, he supported the marriage of Mary I of England and Prince Philip of Spain by recognizing Henry VIIIs' creation of the kingdom of Ireland and the couple's claim to France in his bull "Ilius". However, the Habsburgs disliked Paul IV and he allied with France, possibly against the true interests of the Papacy. He used the Holy Office to suppress the Spirituali, a Catholic group that was deemed heretical. Among his first acts as Pope was to cut off Michelangelo's pension, and he ordered the nudes of The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel be painted more modestly (a request that Michelangelo ignored). He angered people in England by insisting on the restitution of property confiscated during the dissolution, and rejected the claim of Elizabeth I of England to the Crown.
Paul IV strongly affirmed the Catholic dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). The strengthening of the Inquisition continued under Paul IV, and few could consider themselves safe by virtue of position in his drive to reform the Church; even cardinals he disliked could be imprisoned.
In 1555 he issued a canon (papal law), Cum Nimis Absurdum, by which the Roman Ghetto was created. Jews were then forced to live in seclusion in a specified area of the rione Sant'Angelo, locked in at night, and he decreed that Jews should wear a distinctive sign, yellow hats for men, and veils or shawls for women. Jewish ghettos existed in Europe for the next 315 years.
As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve...— Paul IV, Cum nimis absurdum, 1555
Paul IV was violently opposed to the liberal Giovanni Cardinal Morone whom he strongly suspected of being a hidden Protestant, so much that he had him imprisoned. In order to prevent Morone from succeeding him and imposing what he believed to be his Protestant beliefs on the Church, Pope Paul IV codified the Catholic Law excluding heretics and non-Catholics from receiving or legitimately becoming Pope, in the bull Cum ex apostolatus officio.
Paul IV introduced the Index Librorum Prohibitorum or "Index of Prohibited Books" to Venice, then an independent and prosperous trading state, in order to crack down on the growing threat of Protestantism. Under his authority, all books written by Protestants were banned, together with Italian and German translations of the Latin Bible.
Like Pope Paul III, he was an enemy of the Colonna family. His treatment of Giovanna d'Aragona, who had married into that family, drew further negative comment from Venice. This because she had long been a patron of artists and writers.
As was usual with Renaissance Popes, Paul IV sought to advance the fortunes of his family as well as that of the papacy. As Cardinal-nephew, Carlo Carafa became his uncle's chief adviser and the prime mover in their plans to ally with the French to expel the Spanish from Italy. Carlo's older brother Giovanni was made commander of the papal forces and Duke of Paliano after the pro-Spanish Colonna were deprived of that town in 1556. Another nephew, Antonio, was given command of the Papal guard and made Marquis of Montebello. Their conduct became notorious in Rome. However at the conclusion of the disastrous war with Philip II of Spain in the Italian War of 1551–59 and after many scandals, in 1559 the Pope publicly disgraced his nephews and banished them from Rome.
He was buried in St. Peter's Basilica but was later transferred to Santa Maria sopra Minerva. His tomb at the Minerva, by Pirro Ligorio, is dated 1559. It stands in the chapel created by his kinsman Cardinal Oliviero Carafa. Having developed the Inquisition brought him the rancor of Roman people who, after his death, decapitated his statue in Campidoglio and dedicated to him the following pasquinata:
- Carafa hated by the devil and the sky
- is buried here with his rotting corpse,
- Erebus has taken the spirit;
- he hated peace on earth, our faith he contested.
- he ruined the church and the people, men and sky offended;
- treacherous friend, suppliant with the army which was fatal to him.
- You want to know more? Pope was him and that is enough.
Pope Paul IV is a guy who can guide us to The Gates of Hell and back --- but only from the inside.
PS If you prefer to think of Jews as descendants of Abraham of Ur, here is the "color scheme" in Iraq.
First Photos of The Holy Land
Jewish Home, Tiberias, 1893
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Fred Owens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
But male, definitely male, everyone agrees with that ....white?I would not say he Eliot Roger is white. Half-white. Barack Obama is also half-white.I would say that you and I are white, and I'm not sure about you.