FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Ringo rejects Vatican's apology.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
I'm not trying to follow in a certain someone's footsteps by only posting bad news, but I found this story interesting:

http://www.spinner.com/2010/04/15/ringo-...orgiven%2F

Quote:Ringo Starr has rejected moves by the Vatican to 'forgive' the Beatles for John Lennon's notoriously controversial claim in 1966 that they were 'bigger than Jesus'.

As previously reported in Spinner, the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, had published an article sanctioned by Pope Benedict XVI in which the Beatles were praised for their "beautiful" music and absolved for their rock star decadence and experiments with drugs. In a front-page editorial, the paper described the band as a "precious jewel" as well as finally letting Lennon off the hook for his words to journalist Maureen Cleave.

The paper said the Beatles "said they were bigger than Jesus and put out mysterious messages, that were possibly even Satanic" yet admits, "what would pop music be like without the Beatles?"

Starr, however, is unimpressed, stating this week, "Didn't the Vatican say we were Satanic or possibly Satanic? And they've still forgiven us?"

He added, in a reference to the current scandal over paedophile priests in the Catholic Church, "I think the Vatican, they've got more to talk about than the Beatles."

I really don't care for the Beatles or Ringo, but he does bring up two interesting points:

1. Why does the Vatican feel the need to reach out to people they believe are involved with Satanic activity.

2. I don't expect the Vatican to stop all operations because of the abuse scandal, but this is interesting timing for this.
But the Beatles are Satanic. Had the Vatican at any point actually accused them of being Satanic?
That's just so goofy. Why doesn't the Vatican worry about other things besides forgiving the Beetles?  Dunce Is this really rue? Good grief.
(04-15-2010, 11:52 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]But the Beatles are Satanic.

What??  Huh?
(04-15-2010, 12:27 PM)Mommie2Boys Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2010, 11:52 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]But the Beatles are Satanic.

What??  Huh?

Personally I find them more Satanic than Slayer.  The Rolling Stones as well.
Why stop there? Theres more than a few satanic rock groups. Many sold their souls for fame and fortune. Black Sabbath are (were) worse than the Stones. Ozzie still is. Led Zeppelin. You could do a whole many page topic on that one.

In LA, there is a minister, (some kind of prot) Joe Schimmel, who has exposed many of these. Somebody gave me a VHS, from the mid 90's, where Schimmel uses their own words, articles, and live interviews to prove they have indeed sold their souls. The thing is they indict themselves, many admit it. He even has a website that gets updated, and its not just musicians that have done this.

Back to Ringo. A lousy musician, if his IQ hits triple digits, it would only be because he is counting the decimal points. He missed his calling. He would have been right at home as a drummere for a local C/W band playing for beer money in a dive bar in Oklahoma. (I have notrhing aganist Oklahoma, any state like that would do.)
(04-15-2010, 01:18 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]Why stop there? Theres more than a few satanic rock groups. Many sold their souls for fame and fortune. Black Sabbath are (were) worse than the Stones. Ozzie still is. Led Zeppelin. You could do a whole many page topic on that one.

In LA, there is a minister, (some kind of prot) Joe Schimmel, who has exposed many of these. Somebody gave me a VHS, from the mid 90's, where Schimmel uses their own words, articles, and live interviews to prove they have indeed sold their souls. The thing is they indict themselves, many admit it. He even has a website that gets updated, and its not just musicians that have done this.

Back to Ringo. A lousy musician, if his IQ hits triple digits, it would only be because he is counting the decimal points. He missed his calling. He would have been right at home as a drummer for a local C/W band playing for beer money in a dive bar in Oklahoma. (I have notrhing aganist Oklahoma, any state like that would do.)
I'm unimpressed by mr. Starr.
The Beatles are worse than more virulent strains of Satanic music because they're more innocuous.

Despite the modish, pretty-boy image they sported in the United States, there were quite a few distraut parents and public officials who weren't very happy to have them in their town.  Hysterical females followed in their train and there were some suicides laid at their doorstep as well, since the lecherous band and their crew weren't too particular about who or how old...

When they were in Minneapolis, conspicuously one of the only cities where they didn't sell out the venue, they were accused of hosting girls below the age of consent.

I can still remember one of the self-righteous members of the band accusing the local officials of being, "backward" and "intolerant" or something like that.
The Rolling Stones for sure. When Mick's popularity was flagging, he made a little 1/2 hour tv special about himself. I won't bore you with the whole thing, but he was taking his 15 year old daughter to an Elton John Party on Elton's Estate. She had gotten dressed and was walking away from him out of the shot. He turned and caught her image walking away  and told his daughter she should change and remove her underpants before they leave.

It is absolutely crazy for the paper to comment on any of these goofy rock bands. It is so beneath them, what are they thinking aboutHuh?
tim
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12