She proposes: sell the Vatican, feed the world - is she stupid?
Supposing someone - for whatever reason - bought the Vatican for five billion dollars or whatever she values it with ... well, first off: what would the reason be? And who would the buyer be?
Next question: what would happen when the five billion dollars were up?
Back when the temple stood there - yes, I suppose Silverman is a Jewish name - and God through the prophets told Judah to stop all sacrifices as long as there were hungry widows around: never once did He tell the priests to sell the temple to feed the poor.
The temple was there for God. The Church is there for same God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in particular for God the Son made Man and making himself Eucharist (which is not exactly what Jews have been believing in the last 2000 years, more like very rebellious denial).
Now, He told Judas (who had complained about St Mary Magdalen's precious oil) and the Apostles: ye can be kind to the poor whenever ye like, for the poor ye have always among you; but me ye have not always among you.
And that is what would happen, if the Pope sold the Vatican.
The poor would get a few hamburgher meals per day and person next few years, Mc Donalds would make big money, so would the air companies or leasing companies (who own most of the airplanes nowadays) that transported it, local agriculture would be neglected, and when money was up, they would be poorer still.
Sarah Silverman would still have the poor in her living room, when TV was on. Unless journalistic ethos had changed in the meantime. What would her next bid be? Tell the Saudi royal family they would qualify as El Mahdi if they sold Mecca to ... whoever would buy it for whatever reason?
But long before the money was up, the reason for buying the Vatican would have become apparent: any buyer or set of buyers that rich would be Jewish, of the Anti-Christian or Anti-Catholic fringe, eager to chase Christ in the Eucharist out of ... not just the Vatican, but the World.
If Sarah Silverman wants to pose as both honest and intelligent, that does happen to some Jews too, she might want to take certain things back. Like what she said in that video. She might also try to clean her conscience about starving people by taking a cue from Our Lord, like doing good to them as often as she feels like. If, doing so, she still feels half naked, emaciated black people waiting for food is not really what she likes in her living room, she might just turn off the TV.
Oh, before I sign, I will just take this a bit further: do you know how the Vatican got a Vatican bank? No, that was before you were born, right, and "history is bunk" as Ford said. I do not happen to think history is bunk, and I do happen to know it. I will tell, just in case you thought I was being paranoid about "the buyer" you thought the Vatican wanted.
The Vatican sold the Papal States to Italy. Ok, it was not like a decision "what a good idea to sell the states to Italy, so I have less administration to do". It was more like: "Italy has already taken the Papal states, except the Vatican, and now wants to pay for them, and if Pope buys, he no longer ecommunicates King of Italy for taking Papal states, and if he continues to excommunicate King of Italy, Mussolini might turn mean". It was not a heroic decision. But one thing that Vatican bank HAS been doing since is precisely feeding poor people.
Speaking of that occasion when Italy took Papal states from "Vatican", it was in 1870, nearly 60 years before Pope Pius XI sold most of what was robbed, and got back only national sovereignty for ... Vatican State.
And, to the point: Papal States included Rome, and Rome included a Church called St Mary and All Hallows. The building had started as a Pagan temple, Pantheon. Christians answered: more like Pandemonium. One Pope did something about it. He exorcised the Demons. He did away with Pagan statues. He hallowed a Church, to the Triune God as the one we worship with adoration, and to Mary and All Saints as ones we honour as living temples of God. A gifted architect, Bernini, gave it two turrets. The inauguration of that Church was November 1st.
After sacking Rome, Italy gave Rome new rulers, including a mayor, of same extraction as I suppose Sarah Silverman to be. He decided the turrets must go. He or Italy decided All Hallows should again be what it was before that earlier Pope: All Hell, a k a Pantheon in Pagan language. The "gods" that dwell therein are the corpses of bad people, including the King who took Rome (except Vatican) from Papacy.
About that time, maybe a bit earlier, philologists (I and Tolkien are some of them, but in disagreement with that thesis) started saying that November 1st was a Pagan festival anyway. And about a Century later there is such a thing as Helloween on the cultural market.
So, yes, people who attack Papacy sometimes further Satanic schemes. The synagogue of Hannas and Kaiaphas (which stamped both Judas and Jesus as magicians, but preferred Judas between the two) is not excepted. In US, in your State, Christians maybe celebrated Corpus Christi on Thursday, as should be. In France, the Feast is celebrated "following Sunday" i e today. Thanks to whom? To the Vatican? No, but to people who attack it like Sarah Silverman did in that video.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris IV, Beaubourg
Sunday after Corpus Christi
6/VI/2010
PS: a friend of mine suggested that you, being a comedian, might simply be unfamiliar with the facts.
Though he is not Catholic - last time I checked he was Calvinist - he quoted, about "riches of the Church", Owen Chadwick's "The Reformation", as saying:
Supposing someone - for whatever reason - bought the Vatican for five billion dollars or whatever she values it with ... well, first off: what would the reason be? And who would the buyer be?
Next question: what would happen when the five billion dollars were up?
Back when the temple stood there - yes, I suppose Silverman is a Jewish name - and God through the prophets told Judah to stop all sacrifices as long as there were hungry widows around: never once did He tell the priests to sell the temple to feed the poor.
The temple was there for God. The Church is there for same God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in particular for God the Son made Man and making himself Eucharist (which is not exactly what Jews have been believing in the last 2000 years, more like very rebellious denial).
Now, He told Judas (who had complained about St Mary Magdalen's precious oil) and the Apostles: ye can be kind to the poor whenever ye like, for the poor ye have always among you; but me ye have not always among you.
And that is what would happen, if the Pope sold the Vatican.
The poor would get a few hamburgher meals per day and person next few years, Mc Donalds would make big money, so would the air companies or leasing companies (who own most of the airplanes nowadays) that transported it, local agriculture would be neglected, and when money was up, they would be poorer still.
Sarah Silverman would still have the poor in her living room, when TV was on. Unless journalistic ethos had changed in the meantime. What would her next bid be? Tell the Saudi royal family they would qualify as El Mahdi if they sold Mecca to ... whoever would buy it for whatever reason?
But long before the money was up, the reason for buying the Vatican would have become apparent: any buyer or set of buyers that rich would be Jewish, of the Anti-Christian or Anti-Catholic fringe, eager to chase Christ in the Eucharist out of ... not just the Vatican, but the World.
If Sarah Silverman wants to pose as both honest and intelligent, that does happen to some Jews too, she might want to take certain things back. Like what she said in that video. She might also try to clean her conscience about starving people by taking a cue from Our Lord, like doing good to them as often as she feels like. If, doing so, she still feels half naked, emaciated black people waiting for food is not really what she likes in her living room, she might just turn off the TV.
Oh, before I sign, I will just take this a bit further: do you know how the Vatican got a Vatican bank? No, that was before you were born, right, and "history is bunk" as Ford said. I do not happen to think history is bunk, and I do happen to know it. I will tell, just in case you thought I was being paranoid about "the buyer" you thought the Vatican wanted.
The Vatican sold the Papal States to Italy. Ok, it was not like a decision "what a good idea to sell the states to Italy, so I have less administration to do". It was more like: "Italy has already taken the Papal states, except the Vatican, and now wants to pay for them, and if Pope buys, he no longer ecommunicates King of Italy for taking Papal states, and if he continues to excommunicate King of Italy, Mussolini might turn mean". It was not a heroic decision. But one thing that Vatican bank HAS been doing since is precisely feeding poor people.
Speaking of that occasion when Italy took Papal states from "Vatican", it was in 1870, nearly 60 years before Pope Pius XI sold most of what was robbed, and got back only national sovereignty for ... Vatican State.
And, to the point: Papal States included Rome, and Rome included a Church called St Mary and All Hallows. The building had started as a Pagan temple, Pantheon. Christians answered: more like Pandemonium. One Pope did something about it. He exorcised the Demons. He did away with Pagan statues. He hallowed a Church, to the Triune God as the one we worship with adoration, and to Mary and All Saints as ones we honour as living temples of God. A gifted architect, Bernini, gave it two turrets. The inauguration of that Church was November 1st.
After sacking Rome, Italy gave Rome new rulers, including a mayor, of same extraction as I suppose Sarah Silverman to be. He decided the turrets must go. He or Italy decided All Hallows should again be what it was before that earlier Pope: All Hell, a k a Pantheon in Pagan language. The "gods" that dwell therein are the corpses of bad people, including the King who took Rome (except Vatican) from Papacy.
About that time, maybe a bit earlier, philologists (I and Tolkien are some of them, but in disagreement with that thesis) started saying that November 1st was a Pagan festival anyway. And about a Century later there is such a thing as Helloween on the cultural market.
So, yes, people who attack Papacy sometimes further Satanic schemes. The synagogue of Hannas and Kaiaphas (which stamped both Judas and Jesus as magicians, but preferred Judas between the two) is not excepted. In US, in your State, Christians maybe celebrated Corpus Christi on Thursday, as should be. In France, the Feast is celebrated "following Sunday" i e today. Thanks to whom? To the Vatican? No, but to people who attack it like Sarah Silverman did in that video.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris IV, Beaubourg
Sunday after Corpus Christi
6/VI/2010
PS: a friend of mine suggested that you, being a comedian, might simply be unfamiliar with the facts.
Though he is not Catholic - last time I checked he was Calvinist - he quoted, about "riches of the Church", Owen Chadwick's "The Reformation", as saying:
The income of the Republic of Venice was about a million ducats. Even at the best, the Pope's income failed to attain half a million, yet he must bear political, spiritual and sometimes military responsibilities far beyond those of Venice.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire