tomroth Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Pictures taken of the porch of the church in Rennes le Château, France
Atomino Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Pictures taken of the porch of the church in Rennes le Château, France Iesus Hominum Salvator is the "motto" of the Jesuits, the largest male religious order in the Catholic Church. As Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesù" was under the Jesuits protection the symbol IHS was in his label.
hollenbach Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Iesus Hominum Salvator is the "motto" of the Jesuits, the largest male religious order in the Catholic Church. As Giuseppe Guarneri "del Gesù" was under the Jesuits protection the symbol IHS was in his label. Incorrect. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam is the motto of the Jesuits. IHS is used by many orders, including us Dominican types.
tomroth Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Posted July 17, 2009 Jesuits webpage sorry it is in french but the definition of those letters comes from the "owners" - try to translate it via google at the bottom of the page check that url logos
Atomino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Incorrect. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam is the motto of the Jesuits. IHS is used by many orders, including us Dominican types. One week on my knees ?
stradofear Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Jesuits webpage sorry it is in french but the definition of those letters comes from the "owners" - try to translate it via googleat the bottom of the page check that url logos Someone "owns" three letters??? I grew up in the Episcopal church and for us IHS was "in hoc signum"--thus the importance of the cross over the letters in the photo. That interpretation started long before the Jesuits, with Constantine (link), the man who, starting in 325 AD (link), took a vibrant, living, religion and turned it into just another corrupt political party: "Constantine was in Trier Germany in 312 AD when he had a dream of Jesus Christ on the Cross with the sign In Hoc Signum (By this sign.) He issued the Edict of Milan that established tolerance for the Christians." ( http://www.dr-dream.com/hist.htm )
Craig Tucker Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 If my history is corresct; Thus essentially laying the groundwork for what are called "Popes" today, in the modern Universal (Holy Roman Catholic) Church. Gods infallible representatives on earth... Whatever do you mean, corrupt political party? Why can't a human be a king, an Empreor, and also God?
Craig Tucker Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Oops, sorry, I forgot to add the smiley face! (I wonder if Jeffery brought his lock today?)
PicknBow Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 If my history is corresct;Thus essentially laying the groundwork for what are called "Popes" today, in the modern Universal (Holy Roman Catholic) Church. Gods infallible representatives on earth... Whatever do you mean, corrupt political party? Why can't a human be a king, an Empreor, and also God? A human can be a king, an Empreor, and anything else he wants to be except he can't be God. It says so many times in The Bible. Read Isaiah.
hollenbach Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Jesuits webpage sorry it is in french but the definition of those letters comes from the "owners" - try to translate it via googleat the bottom of the page check that url logos It'd be more fair to say that the Jesuit seal includes the IHS Christogram, but is not just the Christogram. The Jesuit seal does feature the IHS prominently - but it is surrounded by the rays of a sun, with a cross over the H and three nails below. IHS has meant many different things throughout history in different Christian communities. Having it at the center of one's seal doesn't entitle one to ownership. In the Catholic community, it is only very rarely used as "In hoc signo vinces", as we choose to use the chi-rho (the actual "signum") instead.
hollenbach Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 If my history is corresct;....Gods infallible representatives on earth... Only somewhat correct. The Popes have spoken infalliably only TWICE - both in the 19th century. People have this conception that whatever the pope says is infalliable, but I assure you that this is only true in the fantasies of unchurched hostile. Unfortunately, some people would rather live with their unfounded suspicions and mistrusts of the Church based on false information. Ah, such is life.
Craig Tucker Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 A human can be a king, an Empreor, and anything else he wants to be except he can't be God. It says so many times in The Bible. Read Isaiah. Were you under the impression that I was attempting to be factual?
Craig Tucker Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Only somewhat correct. The Popes have spoken infalliably only TWICE - both in the 19th century. People have this conception that whatever the pope says is infalliable, but I assure you that this is only true in the fantasies of unchurched hostile. Unfortunately, some people would rather live with their unfounded suspicions and mistrusts of the Church based on false information. Ah, such is life. Having been born and raised as a Catholic (albeit of the "Irish" variety) I find that I must politely dis-agree with some of this assessment.
Ken Pollard Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 I thought it stood for "I Hate Stradivari" That must be it!
hollenbach Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Having been born and raised as a Catholic (albeit of the "Irish" variety) I find that I must politely dis-agree with some of this assessment. Having been born, raised, educated, sacramentized, and now trained as a theologian and junior cleric, I am obligated to disagree with your counter-assessment. However, the leftist majority of me applauds the texture you bring to the community.
Janito Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I enjoyed reading Umberto Eco's Baudolino. You might too.
stradofear Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 DFXR: Unfortunately, some people would rather live with their unfounded suspicions and mistrusts of the Church based on false information. Ah, such is life. CT: Having been born and raised as a Catholic (albeit of the "Irish" variety) I find that I must politely dis-agree with some of this assessment. DFXR: Having been born, raised, educated, sacramentized, and now trained as a theologian and junior cleric, I am obligated to disagree with your counter-assessment. However, the leftist majority of me applauds the texture you bring to the community. SF: I like the use of the word "obligated". It acknowledges the brainwashed aspect of the statement. :-)
hollenbach Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 DFXR: Unfortunately, some people would rather live with their unfounded suspicions and mistrusts of the Church based on false information. Ah, such is life.CT: Having been born and raised as a Catholic (albeit of the "Irish" variety) I find that I must politely dis-agree with some of this assessment. DFXR: Having been born, raised, educated, sacramentized, and now trained as a theologian and junior cleric, I am obligated to disagree with your counter-assessment. However, the leftist majority of me applauds the texture you bring to the community. SF: I like the use of the word "obligated". It acknowledges the brainwashed aspect of the statement. :-) Obligation is a condition of responsibility. There's no need for ad hominem attacks here.
stradofear Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Obligation is a condition of responsibility. There's no need for ad hominem attacks here. Sorry, I didn't intend ad hominem, but rather an indication that perspective (the result of "born, raised, educated, sacramentized, and now trained", not absolute coordinates, is at work in such a response.
hollenbach Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Sorry, I didn't intend ad hominem, but rather an indication that perspective (the result of "born, raised, educated, sacramentized, and now trained", not absolute coordinates, is at work in such a response. With your apparent skills of nuanced reading-between-the-lines, I would expect a better line of reasoning than recourse to "brainwashing".
stradofear Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 With your apparent skills of nuanced reading-between-the-lines, I would expect a better line of reasoning than recourse to "brainwashing". I thought the word fit very precisely, but perhaps it carries too much associated baggage along with it. But take Wikipedia's first sentence on it, for instance (and I didn't see this before I used the word): "Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge. Motives for brainwashing may include the aim of affecting that individual's value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors." Doesn't that sound EXACTLY like religion's objectives regarding human behavior? (And I don't have a problem with the intent of religion in this instance.)
hollenbach Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I thought the word fit very precisely, but perhaps it carries too much associated baggage along with it. But take Wikipedia's first sentence on it, for instance (and I didn't see this before I used the word): "Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge. Motives for brainwashing may include the aim of affecting that individual's value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors."Doesn't that sound EXACTLY like religion's objectives regarding human behavior? (And I don't have a problem with the intent of religion in this instance.) Apparently you knew that your words might illicit some response to such an extent that you sent me a private disclaimer about your remarks. Actually, I disagree with your word "EXACTLY". I can't get into it too deeply here, but my field of theology, moral theology, strong believes that "grace perfects nature, not destroys it". The ordinary actions of human behavior are deep manifestations of a theological anthropology steeped in the goodness of the reality of the human experience. Thus the intent of ethics (or moral theology) seeks not to punish the person by virtue of their actions, but to optimize the benefit aspect of those actions.
stradofear Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Apparently you knew that your words might illicit some response to such an extent that you sent me a private disclaimer about your remarks.Actually, I disagree with your word "EXACTLY". I can't get into it too deeply here, but my field of theology, moral theology, strong believes that "grace perfects nature, not destroys it". The ordinary actions of human behavior are deep manifestations of a theological anthropology steeped in the goodness of the reality of the human experience. Thus the intent of ethics (or moral theology) seeks not to punish the person by virtue of their actions, but to optimize the benefit aspect of those actions. Well, to be clearer, my communication dealt with my feelings about Catholicism and organized religions, not specifically the word "brainwashing". Nevertheless, I'm genuinely fascinated by the ideas in that last sentence. I wonder if that means to you what it means to me. . . . probably not the proper place to get into it, though.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now