The Knights Templar

   Are certainly not modern Freemasons, no matter how much they claim to be.  Well, Wikipedia says they were a "Catholic military order".  So, let's figure out what that means, Wikipedia says it is a "Christian religious society of knights".  Okay, good, though I think the source is about Canada, for whatever reason.  But, how can one be a religious (here, meaning one who has taken certain vows) knight?  

    That actually isn't that hard to figure out.  In 2 Timothy 2:3-4, Paul says (to Timothy)

"Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one that enlisted him".

    That is what these knights were doing, they were trying to satisfy the one that enlisted them (they believed they had a call from God).  They took Paul quite literally, here.  They were literally soldiers for Christ.  

    Now, of course, there are a lot of myths about the crusades, and a book I recommend, is by Regine Pernoud, called "The Templars: Knights of Christ".  I think people tend to forget that the whole reason people believe myths about The Templars, is that people are so willing to believe negative things about Catholics, that they believe the conspiracies along with them.  

    Some Templars WERE tried and executed for heresy.  Mainly in France.  Which had a king with financial problems.  Who was a known opportunistic.  The ironically named "Phillip the Fair" (Fillipe le bel).  

    I admit, this is not my area of expertise, so, I will probably write more when I get more information (and since I am on a Crusades kick at the moment, and also, I know enough French to read books in it, so, maybe I should do that).  Now, I know that the Templars are not Freemasons for one very good reason: Masons aren't Catholic (although, some Catholics are Mason, in spite of it being condemned by the Church REPEATEDLY).  Since I recommended a book, here's a podcast.

The Knights Templar - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World 

*Bible version used, Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition. 

 

Things that actually are racist

   The Cherokee Nation is at the top of that list, what with the fraudulent Indian task force, and all.  They also tried to disenroll all the black folks, after saying they would always be members of the Cherokee Nation.  They also claim that state recognized Cherokee tribes "often required no documented Indian heritage", that's actually a flat out lie, here ya go: From the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee "The Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee accepts for enrollment all persons who can fully document their Cherokee Heritage from one of the many Cherokee census rolls listed below, as required for enrollment by the rules of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Tribe is open for enrollment to all such descendants and according to traditional Cherokee law there is no blood quantum necessary"Enrollment Application Instructions

    It seems rather bizarre to me that they would make a blanket statement, that, at least in this case, is patently untrue.

     Their sister tribe, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), has some similarly racist views.  According to their misunderstandings of how DNA works, the Lumbee can't really be Indian, because they only seem to have a little Indian ancestry.  (The Cherokee Nation, a tribe whose recognition they don't oppose, has no minimal blood quantum, so that's a little hypocritical).  They have trouble documenting it, and from which tribe, but, if you ignore Paul Heinegg's "research" (which you would be well to do, since he is under the impression that "free person of color", always means "black", it can mean that, but it can also mean mixed race), and trace the surnames, you'll find that the Lumbee are, just as they claim to be, an amalgamation of Siouan tribes mixed with black and white ancestry.

     I also want to point out that the idea of full bloodedness is not something known to the Indian people before colonisation.  For the Cherokees and Creeks, for instance, if your mother was a Cherokee or Creek, you were Cherokee or Creek, no matter what your dad was.  You were considered a member of your mothers tribe, regardless of how much or how little blood from that tribe you or your mother had.   

    Maybe it's just me.  Maybe I think we should stop worrying about the wannabe hunters, and embrace our heritage.  According to the Native American Programs Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and HUD, members of state recognized tribes are Indian.  I am not a member of one of these groups (yet), but neither am I ashamed of my heritage.

    With all this "woke" stuff going on, maybe, just maybe, we can learn to live as brothers. How is it, that a Cherokee in Georgia can have blood relatives in the federal tribes in Oklahoma, and North Carolina, and somehow be "fake Indians"?  Most Cherokee are Christians, so maybe they should read these verses: Matthew 5:21-26 (RSVCE)

    I read something recently about Catholic bishops making a document that talks about the inherent inherent dignity of black people.  I'm pretty sure that most people besides racists know that black people have this.  ALL people have inherent dignity.  In their effort to be with the times, the bishops are coming across as racist and condescending towards black people.  I know they aren't, but I think I know what the problem is.

    Look at the ages of the American bishops, you'll note that many of them will skew upwards.  I suspect, that, the reason for this, is because when they were growing up, they witnessed a lot of racism.  And it stuck in their mind that people are racists.  No, not everyone is.  

    Oh, and reverse racism isn't a thing, racism is racism.  Top 10 Ways Racism Affects White People

    That's another thing I've noticed.  With our bishops supporting BLM, they are fundamentally undermining Church teaching.  Seriously, check what they support.  The family is the cornerstone of society, and somehow they believe THAT'S a problem.  BLM is also a bit hypocritical, as they seem to confuse "black" with "African American".

     Look, my frustration is this.  Humans are made in the image and likeness of God.  Something is there about gender, and we are made in the image and likeness of God, but nothing there about skin colour (Genesis 1:26-27), contrary to what some modern, more liberal leaning people believe.  But, nothing explicitly about race in there, in the modern way it's used.  American bishops really should stop undermining what Pope Piux XI wrote.  Racial ideology is a plague.   MIT BRENNENDER SORGE.

        

Stereotypes about Catholics I never understood

   "Catholic beliefs are unbiblical".  Okay, what does that even mean?  Do you like sports?  Soccer, American football, baseball and volleyball didn't exist during biblical times, does that mean there's something wrong with them?  And which Catholic beliefs are unbiblical?  The Mass isn't; it's loaded with Bible quotes, and the liturgy of the Eucharist comes mostly from the Last Supper and Jewish liturgy.  If someone honestly thinks the Mass is "unbiblical", they're going to have a pretty hard time explaining that to someone familiar with 1st century Judaism.

  A related stereotype is that Catholics don't read the Bible.  This may be true for non-practicing Catholics, but the Catholics I know that are weekly Mass-goers, for the Mass part, seem to be more familiar with the Bible than the vast majority of Protestants I know.  (I actually had a Baptist friend ask me if the Bible had a problem with interracial dating and marriage because her sister said it did, and my friend's husband is African American, the idea of "race", the way we use it in the west, didn't really exist in Biblical times, so the Bible said no such thing).  Most Protestants seem to have a few select verses memorised (nothing wrong with that, as it can be useful), the problem is, these are usually taken out of context.  (A good example of this would be Ephesians 2:8-9, great verses, but please read verse 10).

Or that Catholics earn their salvation and are obsessed with rules.  This one always cracks me up, because I know people who believe in once saved, always saved (OSAS), that don't think you should play cards, dance, or drink alcohol (even in moderation).  But it's Catholics that are obsessed with rules.  

   Catholics certainly don't believe we can earn our salvation.  But we do believe there is a right way to live, and a wrong way to live.  If you are not serving God, you can LOSE your salvation.  Just because grace is a gift doesn't mean it can't be lost (and salvation CAN be lost, Matthew 7:21-23).  I can refuse a gift.  Just as I can choose to accept it.  If I no longer want salvation, why could I not refuse it?

    These are just a few things, I have been sick for a while (and still am), so I haven't been able to write for a while.  Hopefully, this clears up a few misunderstandings.

"Peaceful" protests and the persecution complex

  There is no significant statistical evidence that black people are anymore discriminated against by police, than non-Hispanic whites, at least on a large scale.  Yet, we keep hearing how America is "systematically racist", and how "Whiteness is racist", or some such other absurdity.  Question:  What does racism mean?  It doesn't mean "oppressed", it means discrimination on the basis of certain traits, like race, ethnicity, national origin, skin colour, or the like.
  I know, because I am not exactly pale, that I have been the victim of racist bullying from white people, and from black people.  Whilst I am predominantly white (so is the next to last principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, by the way, the same amount of Indian as Elizabeth Warren claims to be), there definitely was something that people saw in me that, for whatever reason, they decided to pick on me.
  Now, I am not here to debate whether or not Elizabeth Warren is Indian (maybe), but I am here to say that being a member of an ethnic, racial, religious minority, does not make you a victim.  That's not to say that there isn't some discrimination against those people, there certainly is.
  My Muslim friend from Saudi Arabia, let's call him Al (and, for added benefit, here's an earworm, Paul Simon - You Can Call Me Al (Official Video)
Al was asked what it was like to be a Muslim in the United States.  His response was something along the lines of "At least I'm not Catholic".
And that's the root of it.  We assume because Catholics are the largest single religious group (i.e., the US would not have a Christian majority if it wasn't for the fact almost 1/4 of the US population is Catholic, though, there are more Protestants), that they must be free from discrimination.
Really, so the government mandated HSS mandate didn't discriminate against Catholics?
Did this not also discriminate against Catholics? Catholic Removed from Florida State Student Politics Over Black Lives Matter Comments
Madison Catholic Bishop Condemns Destruction of Religious Statues: I Can't Remain Silent
And these are but a few, and all in the United States.  There are some governments that exist because of Anti Catholicism (just about every communist one, for instance)
 I think the problem is a persecution complex.  The problem with BLM is that it has a persecution complex, not that it can actually defend its position.  It's easy to get everyone to agree with you when you use terms like "systemic racism" and "white privilege", not because you actually have an argument, but because it makes you sound smart.  BLM wants to "dismantle the nuclear family" (check the about page on their website, I won't link here, because you don't need to look at that pornography), and believes that they should achieve their goal "by any means necessary", they can say they condemn violence all they want, but those words don't seem like it.  BLM is A TERRORIST GROUP.  And why some people do not seem to understand this is legitimately frustrating to me.
Take Gloria Purvis, for example.  Her radio show was dropped by some radio stations because of her saying this.  Well, the statement itself is fine.  The problem is, is that it's also a manipulative name of what amounts to a Marxist terrorist group.  I don't think she was aware of this fact.  I don't think she meant any harm by it.
That's the problem.  We somehow get offended when people say "All lives matter", but not "Black lives Matter".  As stated before, I can agree with the statement.  The problem, however, is, that Black lives matter BECAUSE All lives matter.  When I say "All", guess what?  It includes black people.
Also, there's been very little talk of reconciliation, and that is one issue I am having.  It's a bit difficult  to have conversations with people who support these causes when they seem to want to believe that I'm automatically a racist because I have a differing opinion.  Y'all, here some wisdom from the Book of Sirach (contrary to the reformers' beliefs, it IS a Book of the Bible).
"If you have opened your mouth against your friend,
    do not worry, for reconciliation is possible;
but as for reviling, arrogance, disclosure of secrets, or a treacherous blow—
    in these cases any friend will flee"-Sirach 22:22 (RSVCE)

No, "White" Jesus statues are not racist

  Okay, so who brought Christianity to the Americas?  Umm, Europeans.  And whilst Europeans vary in skin tone, most could probably be considered white.  Then again, the people calling for the removal (really destruction) of the "White Jesus" statues, probably don't even know how the US Census defines white.  I.E., like this White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.".  Don't believe me?  Check here.  About Race.  Anyway, I also think that the people making this statement are not only ignorant of history (like the people that claim Jesus was black, he wasn't and isn't, he's God), but what the word "White" means.  By the way, most visions of Jesus or his mother have him being, basically, whatever ethnicity the people seeing them are.  I.E, Mestizo (a) (Part white, part American Indian) in Mexico, East Asian in Japan, etc.  Also, I'm a little confused about the idea that the statues are "white Jesus", most of the ones I have seen are marble.  You can't really tell a skin tone on a marble statue.  This "White Jesus" phenomenon DOES NOT EXIST.  Very few statues have that have I seen make Jesus look any race, and if they do, yes, he looks white, but not European, Middle Eastern.  And also, I think there may be some ignorance on how Middle Eastern people look.  Some Middle Eastern people do have gray, blue, or green eyes.  Some do have blond, red, or brown hair (though, the first two, whilst existing there, are admittedly rare, but not impossible)  Just as some Europeans, (especially Spanish and Greeks, have dark hair).  There's also some ignorance to this.  Whilst I can't usually tell what "race" (a social concept, not a scientific one) Jesus is in statues, in iconography, I have seen him and his mother depicted as African (especially Ethiopian), Asian, American Indian, and mixed race.  I don't have a problem with ANY of those, just as I don't have a problem with alleged "White" Jesus statues.

Christian leaders and rash judgement

  Being someone of acknowledged mixed racial/ethnic background, I am finding that some of our Christian leaders are starting to support Black Lives Matters.  I can (and do) agree with the statement.  Although, when their supporters say that you're magically a racist because you don't support them, because you dare say something like "All lives matter", ALL lives matter isn't racist, it's BIBLICAL
And I feel like that's what is missing.  When I see my bishops marching, or openly supporting a group like Black Lives Matters, it scares me, because the inference I am getting from BLM, is that being White somehow makes you a racist.  Let me give you a history lesson.  My great grandmother was born in Georgia, but her dad was born Indian Territory, he somehow ended up in Pennsylvania.  My guess is, that he went to Indian school.  My grandma and my great grandma knew him by his Indian name, but we can find very little about him (the paper records don't match the DNA records, his death certificate says he was born in Pennsylvania, but WITHOUT exception, all available census records say he was born in Indian Territory/Oklahoma, but, they're inconsistent with his Indian name).  My great grandmother's first husband (my great grandfather) was a mixed blood, and my dad was of Métis descent.  I also have some Roma ancestry (Sinti and Romanichal), and somewhere, mom is part black.  I agree that there is some systematic racism, but I feel like some of the things folks are calling racist simply aren't.  I agree that Christian leaders (in my case, bishops), have authority given by God (Matthew 16:13-19, Matthew 18:15-20).  This cop in Atlanta that shot a guy.  The dude was extremely drunk, hand an arrest record, stole the guy's taser, and physically fought the cop.  Yet, we're supposed to believe it was an act of racism.  I'm sorry, why?  Or the dude up in Minneapolis.  An abuse of power, certainly, but I have seen no evidence it was racist.  I think people are judging by appearance alone, just as in the case of the Covington Catholic kid.  Nathan Phillips, Judging by appearance alone
I think it would be wise if our Christian leaders found out what BLM (the group that uses the manipulative name, not the phrase itself), believes, before tacitly supporting them. 
The jogger that was killed, yeah, that was racist.  But it wasn't by cops.  You know who the racists are?  The people who assume disagreeing with them is racist.  I don't know about our Christian leaders, but as for me, I will not bow

Could we stop treating the Latin language like it's magic?

  "If only people received on the tongue", "If only people knelt at communion"  "If only Mass were in Latin".  I'm about to destroy some of your expectations, so hold on.  First of all, we're not sure if the Apostles received Our Lord in the Eucharist kneeling or in the hand, seriously Don't be leagalistic about how others receive Communion.  The truth is, that we just don't know (watch the video to find out more).  Now, there are other things that I think we should not be doing as Catholics, and that is somehow, thinking that Latin has some kind of holy power for being, well, Latin.  I've got news for y'all, but the devil doesn't flee from Latin.  The demons flee from holiness  The gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus preached in Aramaic.  Jesus was able to drive out demons, not because he spoke to them in Latin (which, by the way, he didn't), but, because he is the Son of God.  (Luke 8:26-38, Mark 5:1-20).  Nothing there about the Latin language being holy.  Now, I want you to understand what I'm not doing.  I am not denigrating its importance.  It was, in the west, the language of the learned, and the liturgical language for most of its (western) Christian history (although, not all of it).  .  I am not denigrating your preference for Latin Mass if you have one.  I am not denigrating your preference for receiving on the tongue.  I am not denigrating your preference for receiving communion whilst kneeling.
But the truth is, this is not universal. There is some evidence that receiving on the hand was communion in the early centuries of Christianity.  I'm not getting into that debate.
As for kneeling, well, in the east, you've never had to kneel whilst receiving communion.
Receiving in the hand doesn't happen, though.  Intinction makes that kind of difficult.
But why is it that some people denigrate the so-called Novus Ordo?
If people bothered READING what the Vatican documents say, a lot of the complaints they have aren't actually because of the council.  In fact, I'll get you started with that.
DOCUMENTS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL.
It wasn't me typing in call caps, it was the Vatican website.  That said, I do hope the text jumped out at you.
I do want to point out, I actually AGREE with many of the grievances that the more "traditionalists" sorts have a problem with.  Spineless bishops (though, I refuse to criticise individual bishops), poor catechesis, and an odd willingness for our bishops to jump on the most popular Social Justice Warrior bandwagon of the day (again, Social Justice is a teaching of the Church, that's not my complaint)
Beware of Social Justice Warrior preachers
I think it may be, because here in the United States, most people associate Catholics with Latin Catholics (or, as they mistakenly call us "Roman" Catholic).   So, if Catholic=Roman, Catholics should use Latin.  But that's not true.  First of all, modern Latin is a wide range of different languages.  I took French for two semesters in college, I know.    Maronites are Catholic, why would they use Latin?  Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use Arabic or Syriac?  Lebanon, the country from which most of them come from, speaks Arabic, and they use a variation of the West Syriac rite.  Or Melkites, another group from the Middle East.  They mainly speak Arabic, and are historically Byzantine.  So, wouldn't Greek and Arabic make more sense for them?
This is what bothers me.
When we hold Latin in such high esteem, we are forgetting about the hundreds of millions of Christians that have never used it.  It's not that it isn't important (it totally is), but so are Syriac, Greek, Coptic, and Old Church Slavonic, amongst others.
And this has me worried.
One thing I think that Pope Francis is right about is his relationship with the Eastern Orthodox.  Francis has experience with Eastern Catholicism in his home country of Argentina, and has taken great strides to be ecumenical with Patriarch Bartholomew.   THAT is a step in the right direction.  And if we keep making this argument that Latin is the best thing since sliced bread (which, to be fair, Latin is much older than, little aside, sliced bread was invented in the city I was born, Davenport, Iowa, although, it was not quite popular until the 1920s, YAY TRIVIA), we have no chance of reunion.  The schism WILL end in my lifetime (for the record, I am 32), but if we keep having this weird obsession with Latin, how are we going to have reunion?  The answer: we won't.