Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Life imitates art? The fantasy has become the reality!

Gird your loins my brothers and sisters.

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.


Fantasy is becoming reality where "one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."

And yet, there is only one Reality.

And His name is Jesus Christ.


 

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Questioning Same-Sex "Marriage?" - Blame the leaders of the Catholic Church!

For my non-Catholic readers you may find that title surprising, for some of my Catholic readers you may find it scandalous. However I suspect most of you will know exactly what it means.

As you know by now, the Supreme Court of the United States of America in a 5-4 vote decided that two men or two women have the constitutional right to enter into a legal marriage. What a lie. What utter poppycock. 

As for the comments by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' President, you're a little late. You did this. You and your colleagues and your predecessors. You are a scandal to the faithful. You are a disgrace to the Martyrs.

Marriage is between one man and one woman, period. You can call this legal definition whatever you want  but marriage, it is not. 

In Canada, we have had it forced upon us for a decade now. I recall the years before the debate with the news articles about why such an abomination was necessary. We were presented with stories about how a co-habitating couple who were together for many years found themselves cut out of medical decisions or funeral arrangements for one or the other by cruel and vindictive families of the ill or deceased. We heard about how their health benefits were not available to the other (corporations quickly changed that lest they be accused of discrimination). Houses and bank accounts were frozen and the poor survivor was left homeless or penniless after death. And then of course, it was all about his and his towels, kitchen appliances and how much they love one another. These arguments never seemed to be part of the debate in America which seemed to centre specifically around "equality." While that was the eventual argument here under the minority rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it was not how Canadians were softened up. 

The truth is, it was never about marriage. One did not need "marriage" to affect inheritance, property financial security or visits in a hospital, decisions by others as to treatment or funeral arrangements. Canada, after all, is a nation with laws and legal precedence and civil courts and legislation. No "gay" couple needed marriage to give them legal protection. They needed a Last Will and Testament, a Power of Attorney for Personal Care, a Power of Attorney Over Personal Finances, an "On Title" to a property, "Joint Tenantship" to a lease. You see, legal protections were already there for any two persons to make any kind of legal relationship that they desired. If I were not married, I could give my brother or my best friend legal decisions or my medical care or finances should I become incompetent. 

All western and probably most other nations have these kinds of legal instruments. No, it was never about marriage and it was never about love. It is about destroying the fundamental foundation of a civil and rightly-ordered society, the nuclear family. It has been a battle going on for half a century or more now that began with contraception, then no-fault divorce, abortion and the decriminalisation and legalisation of sodomy, what our Criminal Code of Canada called, "buggery."

The most intense study ever done on the population of homosexuals reveals that no more than about 2% of people are self-described, homosexuals. So, how does 2% of the population manage this? They wield this power because enough others are afraid to be called "bigots" and while they may not identify as "homosexual" they have had an experience with sodomy and are "bi-sexual" and some are blackmailed. It has happened because most people watch pornography and are chronic masturbators and their minds and reason have been poisoned by their own sexual perversions. They fear being called a hypocrite and they do not want to be judged for their own escapades with pornography, masturbation and massage parlours and prostitutes so they turn from the truth and allow license for everyone. 

All of us have sinned and have and continue to fall short of the glory of God.

It was then and is about a fundamental hatred of the One Supreme God, the sacrificial offering of His Son and the intense hatred for His Church and by Church I mean, the Catholic Church as most protestants have long since apostatised from the Truth in the matter of marriage in addition to doctrine.

And it is the Catholic Church itself that has caused it all. Or perhaps I should say, it is the leadership of the Catholic Church, not the Church as the Mystical Body, but the leaders who have caused this abomination to happen to our nations. This lie has been given to us by Catholics. 

In the decision yesterday in America, it was two Catholic Justices, Kennedy and Sotomayor, an Irishman and a Hispanic woman, both baptised and raised Catholic who did this. In fact, if only one of them was not blind to the Truth the vote would have been 5-4 in the other direction. 

In Ireland, the bishops of that once Catholic land presided over the disaster of a referendum favouring this abomination of same-sex "marriage" looking at best as deer in headlights. 

In Canada, we never had the chance to vote for it. It was forced upon us out of the blue by a Catholic Prime Minister who was a failure as a leader by the name of Paul Martin. There was no election mandate. The roots of it were already in place thanks to four other Catholic Prime Ministers, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Joseph Clark and Pierre Elliot Trudeau. These men, contributed each to the weakening of the Parliamentary system and the constitutional framework unknown before in this country that gave us judicial activism. Martin wanted to act before the Supreme Court forced it. We the people had little choice but as Canadians, we just went along to get along.

You see then?

It was Catholics in Canada and the United States imbued with false understanding of the One, True, Faith and blinded by secularism, liberalism and dictatorship of relativism hat gave us this situation. It happened because bishops failed to teach the faith properly for the last have century or more. It happened because the destruction of the liturgy lead to weak Catholics. It drove people from Mass and the Sacraments and the priests failed to preach the Truth. 

Last October, we saw the filth and lies of these same bishops put forward in a Synod of the Church that would literally anoint sodomy for the "gifts" it can bring to the Church. All under the eyes of Pope Francis himself.

The consciences of these parliamentarians, congressmen, senators, prime ministers, presidents, and supreme court judges; Catholics many of them, were ill-formed and darkened by a corrupted Church that has betrayed Our Lord Jesus Christ because the Church has been infiltrated by sodomites and Marxists who hate Her and wish to bring about Her destruction because the Catholic Church is the only thing that stands in their way of total world domination. 

The push for this abomination began in Holland and Belgium and Canada soon followed. Yet the United States is the most culturally hegemonic nation in the world. The disaster of this decision will have profound affects on other nations that have not yet gone down this road.

The truth is that persons who are "homosexuals" have much wrong with them. Aside from the "sin which cries out to heaven" they die younger and will continue to do so - "marriage" will not change reality. They die from hideous diseases and younger than the rest of the population. Suicide rates, violence between "lovers" depression, drug-abuse, alcoholism, self-mutilation. All of these are higher by significant percentages compared to the general population. It is not alleged discrimination that causes these conditions, it is their physical behaviour and the untreated spiritual and psychological conditions that lead to the physical manifestations. 

Anal cancer (with caution, you can google the pictures and see what sodomy can cause) is 50% higher than the normal. Parasites such as amoebiasis due to oral-fecal contact and giardiasis, gonorrhea and anal warts (condyloma acuminata) abound in the population. Anorectal sepsis, Epstein-Barr Syndrome, Burkitt's Lymphoma, Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Karposi's Sarcoma, Hepatitis, AIDS, Prostrate Cancer, colitis, enterities, proctitus, proctocolitus and diseases of the mouth which would cause horror to view. 

All this, because the leaders of the Holy Catholic Church have and continue to fail to teach the truth with clarity and charity that homosexual relations are not only sinful and against the Laws of God and nature but they are deadly. 

All men and women are children of God made in His Divine image and are called to something greater. This includes homosexuals and lesbians.

They are loved by the Triune God and the Father call them through the Holy Spirit to come to the Son, Our LORD Jesus Christ for salvation.

God does not will that they die in their sin and are lost in Hell. He wants them, as He wants all of us in heaven for eternity with Him.

If the Church does not proclaim the Truth with clarity, no Year of Mercy is going to save them.

God help us.

Friday, 26 June 2015

I will not submit to sodomy as anything other than the filth and evil that it is and it is straight out of Hell

This was on a friend's Facebook entry. While it has been a decade in Canada and has only just come to the United State of America.

I reprint it here:

I DECLARE, PROFESS, PROCLAIM, AND STATE WITHOUT AMBIGUITY OR COMPROMISE that Same-Sex (so called) Marriage is an UNNATURAL, MORTAL and GRIEVOUS SIN that cries to heaven for vengeance and is reprobate, as are all acts of SODOMY!

NO HUMAN AUTHORITY, no matter how legitimate or honorable, whether, monarch, republic, democracy, or totalitarian dictatorship as the right to make lawful that which is unlawful by nature and by nature's GOD. It does not matter how many people agree (even if it were the whole world) to legitimize anything against the law of GOD especially 

ABORTION, SODOMY, and EUTHANASIA it still remains illegitimate and NO ROMAN CATHOLIC can in anyway, condone, legitimate, accept, support or agree with an unjust law that is opposed to the Law of GOD.

Silence in the face of evil is cooperation with evil. It is the duty and the obligation of all Roman Catholics to vociferously OPPOSE any law that is opposed to the Law of GOD. To do or say nothing when these unjust laws are enacted is to silently approve them even if you do not.

I therefore PROCLAIM for all to see, read, and hear I believe that Sodomite 'marriage' is an evil that cannot be tolerated. I oppose it with every fiber of my being as I oppose the murder of Abortion and the murder/suicide of Euthanasia. I will proclaim this and oppose these evils to my death. If I am persecuted because of it so be it. NEVERTHELESS, let it be known that I will never go quietly into the night, I will not be arrested without a fight, I will not loose my freedom without a fight to the death.

LET BE KNOWN I AM A CRISTERO AND I WILL ACT AS SUCH IF ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO TAKE AWAY MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. SO HELP ME GOD!


VIVA CRISTO REY! 
VIVA LA VIRGIN DE GUADALUPE!

BREAKING REPORT—June 26: A Day That Will Live in Infamy

The Catholic justices that did this, Sotomayor and Kennedy, have, unless they repent, condemned themselves to Hell.

The days are coming, indeed, they are already here



The Days Are Coming, and Are Already Here
 

The Antichrist, says Soloviev, was "a convinced spiritualist." He believed in goodness, and even in God. He was an ascetic, a scholar, a philanthropist. He gave "the greatest possible demonstrations of moderation, disinterest, and active beneficence."

In his early youth, he had distinguished himself as a talented and insightful exegete: one of his extensive works on biblical criticism had brought him an honorary degree from the University of Tübingen.

Giacomo BiffiBut the book that had gained for him universal fame and consensus bore the title: "The Open Road to Universal Peace and Prosperity," in which "a noble respect for ancient traditions and symbols was joined with a sweeping, audacious radicalism toward social and political needs and directives. Limitless freedom of thought was united with a profound comprehension of everything mystical; absolute individualism with an ardent dedication to the common good; the most elevated idealism toward guiding principles with the complete precision and viability of practical solutions."

It is true that some men of faith wondered why the name of Christ did not appear even once, but others replied: "If the contents of the book are permeated with the true Christian spirit, with active love and universal benevolence, what more do you want?" Besides, he "was not in principle hostile to Christ." On the contrary, he appreciated his right intentions and lofty teaching.

But three things about Jesus were unacceptable to him.

First of all, his moral preoccupations. "The Christ," he asserted, "has divided men according to good and evil with his moralism, whereas I will unite them with the benefits that both good and evil alike require."

He also did not like Christ's "absolute uniqueness." He was one of many, or even better – he said – he was my precursor, because I am the perfect and definitive savior; I have purified his message of what is unacceptable for the men of today.

Finally, and above all, he could not endure the fact that Christ is alive, so much so that he repeated hysterically: "He is not among the living, and will never be. He is not risen, he is not risen, he is not risen. He rotted, he rotted in the tomb…"

But where Soloviev's presentation shows itself to be particularly original and surprising – and merits greater reflection – is in the attribution to the Antichrist of the qualities of pacifist, environmentalist, ecumenist. […]

Did Soloviev have a particular person in mind when he made this description of the Antichrist? It is undeniable that he alludes above all to the "new Christianity" that Leo Tolstoy was successfully promoting during those years. […]

In his "Gospel," Tolstoy reduces all of Christianity to five rules of conduct which he derives from the Sermon on the Mount:

1. Not only must you not kill, but you must not even become angry with your brother.

2. You must not give in to sensuality, not even to the desire for your own wife.

3. You must never bind yourself by swearing an oath.

4. You must not resist evil, but you must apply the principle of non-violence to the utmost and in every case.

5. Love, help, and serve your enemy.

According to Tolstoy, although these precepts come from Christ, they in no way require the actual existence of the Son of the living God to be valid. [...]

Of course, Soloviev does not specifically identify the great novelist with the figure of the Antichrist. But he intuited with extraordinary clairvoyance that Tolstoy's creed would become during the 20th century the vehicle of the substantial nullification of the gospel message, under the formal exaltation of an ethics and a love for humanity presented as Christian "values." [...]

The days will come, Soloviev tells us – and are already here, we say – in which the salvific meaning of Christianity, which can be received only in a difficult, courageous, concrete, and rational act of faith, will be dissolved into a series of "values" easily sold on the world markets.

The greatest of the Russian philosophers warns us that we must guard against this danger. Even if a Tolstoian Christianity were to make us infinitely more acceptable in the living room, at social and political gatherings, and on television, we cannot and must not renounce the Christianity of Jesus Christ, the Christianity that has at its center the scandal of the cross and the astonishing reality of the Lord's resurrection.

Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God, the only savior of mankind, cannot be transformed into a series of worthwhile projects and good inspirations, which are part and parcel of the dominant worldly mentality. Jesus Christ is a "rock," as he said of himself. And one either builds upon this "rock” (by entrusting oneself) or lunges against it (through opposition): "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him" (Mt. 21:44). [...]

So Soloviev's teaching was simultaneously prophetic and largely ignored. But we want to repropose it in the hope that Christianity will finally catch on to it and pay it a bit of attention.

The new book by Giacomo Cardinal Biffi from which the passage on the Antichrist was taken:

Giacomo Biffi, "Pinocchio, Peppone, l’Anticristo e altre divagazioni [Pinocchio, Peppone, the Antichrist, and other Meanderings],” > Cantagalli, Siena, 2005, pp. 256, euro 14,90.


And this:

Soloviev And Our Time
By Giacomo Cardinal Biffi

Vladimir Sergeevic Soloviev passed away 100 years ago, on July 31 (August 13 according to our Gregorian calendar) of the year 1900. He passed away on the threshold of the 20th century -- a century whose vicissitudes and troubles he had foreseen with striking clarity, but also a century, which, tragically, in its historical course and dominant ideologies, would reject his most profound and important teachings. His, therefore, was a teaching at once prophetic and largely unheeded.

A Prophetic Teaching

At the time of the great Russian philosopher, the general view -- in keeping with the limitless optimism of the "belle epoque"' -- foresaw a bright future for humanity in the new century: under the direction and inspiration of the new religion of progress and solidarity stripped of transcendent elements, humanity would enjoy an era of prosperity, peace, justice, security. In the "Excelsior" -- a form of dance, which enjoyed an extraordinary success in the last years of the 19th century (and which later lent its name to countless theaters and hotels) -- this new religion found its own liturgy, as it were. Victor Hugo proclaimed: "This century was great, the one coming will be happy."

But Soloviev refused to allow himself to be swept up in this de-sacralized vision. On the contrary, he predicted with prophetic clarity all of the disasters which in fact occurred.

As early as 1882, in his "Second Discourse on Dostoevsky," Soloviev foresaw -- and condemned -- the sterility and cruelty of the collectivist tyranny which a few years later would oppress Russia and mankind. "The world must not be saved by recourse to force." Soloviev said. "One could imagine men toiling together toward some great end to which they would submit all of their own individual activity; but if this end is imposed on them, if it represents for them something fated and oppressive... then, even if this unity were to embrace all of mankind, universal brotherhood would not be the result, but only a giant anthill." This "anthill" was later constructed through the obtuse and cruel ideology of Lenin and Stalin.

In his final work, The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist (finished on Easter Sunday 1900), one is struck by how clearly Soloviev foresaw that the 20th century would be "the epoch of great wars, civil strife and revolutions" All this, he said, would prepare the way for the disappearance of "the old structure of separate nations" and "almost everywhere the remains of the ancient monarchical institutions would disappear." This would pave the way for a "United States of Europe."

The accuracy of Soloviev's vision of the great crisis that would strike Christianity at the end of the 20th century is astonishing.

He represents this crisis using the figure of the Antichrist. This fascinating personage will succeed in influencing and persuading almost everyone. It is not difficult to see in this figure of Soloviev the reflection, almost the incarnation, of the confused and ambiguous religiosity of our time.

The Antichrist will be a "convinced spiritualist" Soloviev says, an admirable philanthropist, a committed, active pacifist, a practicing vegetarian, a determined defender of animal rights.

He will also be, among other things, an expert exegete. His knowledge of the bible will even lead the theology faculty of Tubingen to award him an honorary doctorate. Above all, he will be a superb ecumenist, able to engage in dialogue "with words full of sweetness, wisdom and eloquence."

He will not be hostile "in principle" to Christ. Indeed, he will appreciate Christ's teaching. But he will reject the teaching that Christ is unique, and will deny that Christ is risen and alive today.

One sees here described -- and condemned -- a Christianity of "values," of "openings," of "dialogue," a Christianity where it seems there is little room left for the person of the Son of God crucified for us and risen, little room for the actual event of salvation.

A scenario, I think, that should cause us to reflect...

A scenario in which the faith militant is reduced to humanitarian and generically cultural action, the Gospel message is located in an irenic encounter with all philosophies and all religions and the Church of God is transformed into an organization for social work.

Are we sure Soloviev did not foresee what has actually come to pass? Are we sure it is not precisely this that is the most perilous threat today facing the "holy nation" redeemed by the blood of Christ -- the Church?

It is a disturbing question and one we must not avoid.

A Teaching Unheeded

Soloviev understood the 20th century like no one else, but the 20th century did not understand Soloviev.

It isn't that he has not been not recognized and honored. He is often called the greatest Russian philosopher, and few contest this appellation.

Von Balthasar regarded his work "the most universal speculative creation of the modern period" (Gloria III, p. 263) and even goes so far as to set him on the level of Thomas Aquinas.

But there is no doubt that the 20th century, as a whole, gave him no heed. Indeed, the 20th century, at every turn, has gone in the direction opposed to the one he indicated.

The mental attitudes prevalent today, even among many ecclesially active and knowledgeable Christians, are very far indeed from Soloviev's vision of reality.

Among many, here are a few examples:

Egoistic individualism, which is ever more profoundly leaving its mark on our behaviors and laws;

Moral subjectivism, which leads people to hold that it is licit and even praiseworthy to assume positions in the legislative and political spheres different from the behavioral norms one personally adheres to;

Pacifism and non-violence of the Tolstoyan type confused with the Gospel ideals of peace and fraternity to the point of surrendering to tyranny and abandoning the weak and the good to the powerful;

A theological view which, out of fear of being labeled reactionary, forgets the unity of God's plan, renounces spreading divine truth in all spheres, and abdicates the attempt to live out a coherent Christian life.

In one special way, the 20th century, in its movements and in its social, political and cultural results, strikingly rejected Soloviev's great moral construction. Soloviev held that fundamental ethical principles were rooted in three primordial experiences, naturally present in all men: that is to say, modesty, piety toward others and the religious sentiment.

Yet the 20th century, following an egoistic and unwise sexual revolution, reached levels of permissivism, openly displayed vulgarity and public shamelessness, which seem to have few parallels in history.

Moreover, the 20th century was the most oppressive and bloody of all history, a century without respect for human life and without mercy.

We cannot, certainly, forget the horror of the extermination of the Jews, which can never be execrated sufficiently. But it was not the only extermination. No one remembers the genocide of the Armenians during the First World War.

No one commemorates the tens of millions killed under the Soviet regime.

No one ventures to calculate the number of victims sacrificed uselessly in the various parts of the earth to the communist Utopia.

As for the religious sentiment during the 20th century, in the East for the first time state atheism was both proposed and imposed on a vast portion of humanity, while in the secularized West a hedonistic and libertarian atheism spread until it arrived at the grotesque idea of the "death of God."

In conclusion: Soloviev was undoubtedly a prophet and a teacher, but a teacher who was, in a way, irrelevant. And this, paradoxically, is why he was great and why he is precious for our time.

A passionate defender of the human person and allergic to every philanthropy; a tireless apostle of peace and adversary of pacifism; a promoter of Christian unity and critic of every irenicism: a lover of nature and yet very far from today's ecological infatuations -- in a word, a friend of truth and an enemy of ideology.

Of leaders like him we have today great need.

Born in Milan on June 15, 1928, Biffi was ordained on December 25, 1950. A Milan seminary professor, he became a bishop in 1976, then archbishop of Bologna in 1984 and a cardinal on May 25, 1985.

In Bologna, he is the 110th successor of St. Petronius.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

The Labourious Instrument from Hell

The Instrumentum Laboris 2015 is upon us. For whatever my opinion is worth, I cannot assess it any better than these. Rorate Caeli has done excellent analysis and translation as has One Peter FiveSuffice to say, Kasper's deceitful offerings have made it in. The Catholic Church is being betrayed by those who are there to govern and sanctify the faithful.

Yet, Mundabor has captured it in his most unique way with a spot-on reference to St. John the Baptist. Indeed he is right. These men in Rome know more than St. John the Baptist whose Birth Feast was just celebrated. Let me give you a little bit of what he writes:
Where was St John’s compassion? Did he know anything about inclusiveness? Had he ever heard of mercy? Why did not prepare a path for Heros and Herodias? Why this cruel exclusion? How could St John ask Herodias and Herod Antipas to… just split? Destroy a new family? Destroy a new reality? With a child in it?

How brilliant and yet, how bloody obvious on Mundabor's part. 

St. John the Baptist's actions against Herod, Herodias and Salome would be condemned today by these men. How can they, in all good conscience, put forward the paragraphs that lay within this document and actually think that they are serving Our Lord Jesus Christ? Reading their intentions is tantamount to calling St. John the Baptist a fool and a liar.

It seems to me that it is quite simple. These men in the Vatican have lost the faith, if they ever had it. They certainly do not believe in supernatural faith and they do not believe in Hell. Well, they surely will when they get there and that is where they will go if they continue down this road to betray Our Lord, His Church and faithful, should they not repent. 

Yes. These theologians, priests, bishops and cardinals will go to Hell. If they do not believe it exists, they will. 
Ponder that for a moment. If they do not repent, they will go to Hell.

These are evil men with evil intentions. They will attempt to change doctrine through stealth. They have told us so already.

Your job and mine is to call them out without ceasing. We must challenge the satanic verses within this Instrumentum Laboris that would undermine doctrine, morality  and the Holy Eucharist. We must stand firm against any change in the wording or approach on the matter of sodomy and those suffering from same-sex attraction as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

The battle is called, the gauntlet has been thrown down; and to think, it is the Pope himself, possibly naive, possibly suffering from dementia and surrounded by evil, filthy and deceitful men that has given us this spiritual distress and scandal against the faith. These cannot be the actions of the Holy Spirit, it is simply not possible. 

It must be one of naivety or dementia because if it is not, then there is only one other explanation and that is simply too horrible to even contemplate.



 

Vatican hypocrisy or a state of denial to the obvious?

We have heard recently from Pope Francis himself about air conditioning, weapons manufacturers and the military strategy in World War II. We can determine that air conditioning is bad, weapons manufacturers are hypocrites if they call themselves Christians and World War II strategy was wrong and bombing methods then are being grossly confused with modern technological advances in military precision.

At some point, one must ask if Pope Francis is beginning to suffer from dementia. I don't mean this in a derogatory way but in the actual medical understanding

Presenting beach balls to the Blessed Mother on the Altar of God? The rambling and incoherence of some of his talks, particularly last Sunday in Turin is evident that something may be wrong. When we consider the range of insults that have come forth from his mouth over the last two and one-half years, what is the typical Catholic person who is desirous to be charitable left to think? 

My never married godmother and "Old maid" Auntie who died at 104 year-old was also a "Rosary counter" (that's a bad thing? we used to call these "spiritual bouquets"). Or perhaps we can consider being called a "Formenter of coprophagia" (had to look that one up - yes it is what it is and he said it and probably from where we get the word, crap, A "Functionary" might actually be a good thing depending on the circumstances and then we have the "self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian" which is my utmost favourite because I think he was talking directly to me. 

Well, who am I too judge, eh?

On more than one occasion here, here and here; I raised the question of the ownership by the Catholic Church in Germany of a publisher that regularly published pornography and erotica. For a decade, Catholics in Germany raised this matter with their bishops and were ignored. We have yet to here conclusively if the Church has divested of its ownership in Weltbild and what it did with the profits earned from filth, evil and sin. We have yet to hear what public penance has been done to make amends to God for this betrayal.

Where is the comment from the Pope or a senior German Cardinal about this scandal?

Is the plastic bubble that the Pope rides in air conditioned? Is the Domus Santa Marta or the chapel where he offers daily Mass? Does the jet that will bring him to around the world fly on water and expel steam? Has the Swiss Guard given up its collection of weapons?

How many are aware that Carrier, that's right, the air-conditioning global corporation that makes profit and employs over 40,000 people who can feed their families, has provided two innovative water-cooled chillers each with 580 kilowatts of capacity to cool and regulate the humidity of the Sistine Chapel?

Carrier is owned by United Technologies which also manufactures Sikorsky Helicopters, Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines and UTC Aerospace Systems all with military, defense and weapons components.

This is nothing less than complete and utter hypocrisy.

It is either that, or the Pope himself is suffering from dementia and he has been surrounded with the most vile and despicable cardinals and monsignore since the renaissance who are taking advantage of his condition.

It is to leave one with nothing except this: 



Wednesday, 24 June 2015

The Record of John

On this blessed Feast/Solemnity of St. John the Baptist enjoy this most magnificent verse anthem by Orlando Gibbons and as shameless self-promotion, for a small choir you might pick up a few of these.

 



Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Does he or doesn't he?

GloriaTV is reporting that:
"Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, the Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, spoke in an interview with the Brazilian magazine Veja about a deep reform that is going on at the moment in the Church. Quote: “We Catholics lived for centuries with the idea that we need to convert people in order to bring them closer. But we cannot act as if we were the owners of the morals." 
According to Cardinal João Braz de Aviz there are – quote - “two ways to read the Gospel, one of purely doctrinal or rational form.” The other is to see the message of Jesus in the words of the Gospel. This he calls floridly “the message of love and acceptance of Jesus.” He accuses the – quote – “traditionalists of the Church” to see the Gospel in a – quote – “restrictive and purely doctrinal way.” 
Cardinal João Braz de Aviz does not say nice things about Benedict XVI who tragically named him to his post. Quote: “As for Benedict XVI, the last time I asked to speak to him, the meeting was scheduled for four months later. He is extremely shy, and this shyness caused a very large communication difficulty.” But now, Braz de Aviz is happy to have easier access to the Pope: “I see the Pope Francis at least every two weeks."
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:19 
"And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15
I have a question.

What man of 68 has hair this black?


Well? 

Isn't Jesus Christ the "Ultimate Truth?"

From the just can't make this stuff up file:

I thought that the ultimate Truth was and is Jesus Christ?


O LORD, spare us. Spare your people O LORD from these men; these Modernists.

Truly, we are being scourged. 

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/06/23/cardinal_tauran_catholic-buddhist_seeks_to_grasp_truth/1153439

Vatican Radio) The President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, said on Wednesday he sees Buddhist-Catholic dialogue as “a part of our ongoing quest to grasp the mystery of our lives and the ultimate Truth.”

Guns and glass houses

"It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn't it?"



Monday, 22 June 2015

Laudato si : My aching back




"Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfillment.” Laudato si 128


“And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.” Genesis 3:17

Laudato si : Bless me Father for I have sinned, I have air conditioning in my home, office and car!

How much fuel does it take to fly thousands around the world to World Youth Day? Or how much does it cost a man whose business was closed for six months for which they never recovered after urine and excrement (and condoms) from World Youth Day Toronto 2002 ended up in his store?  
55. Some countries are gradually making significant progress, developing more effective controls and working to combat corruption. People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning. The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour, which at times appears self-destructive.
My friend Glen, a devout Catholic, sells air conditioning to support his family. Perhaps they should starve. I have asthma. On smoggy, humid days I depend on it. Perhaps I should just suffocate.

Or maybe this would be less sinful. Except for the plastic bottles and water taken out of an aquifer somewhere.

I know, why don't we kill of 6,000,000,000 or so and then it will all be okay.

Saturday, 20 June 2015

Laudato si: Earth Charter Globalists ecstatic and intend on "neutralising" the Catholic faith

At La Salette Blog, Paul Anthony Melanson highlights 207 of Laudato si. Pope Francis writes that:
"The Earth Charter asked us to leave behind a period of self-destruction and make a new start."
What is the Earth Charter and why should you care?

From La Salette: 
Speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, Msgr. Michel Schooyans said, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized."
Monsignor Shooyans also writes that Imperial Marxism has been replaced by United Nations secularism. 

The United Nations. The Earth Charter. These are they who are overjoyed at this Encyclical and who the ghostwriters consulted and whose bidding they undertook.

Does Pope Francis realise who and what he has allied himself with?

Laudato si: One little drop



Pope Francis has issued his long-awaited Encyclical, Laudato si. Like a drop of poison in a glass of water, there is much in this document to be questioned and to be concerned about. From the ghostwriter to the presenters, as a Catholic, I find the lowering of the Church's standards to a PR campaign, deplorable.

In an effort to be charitable, we can only conclude that the Pope himself has been duped by evil men surrounding him. 

Over a series of short-posts, it is my intent to highlight some of the most egregious statements in this document. 

The world is aflame with terrorism and Christian slaughter. Our sister Asia Bibi still languishes in a jail awaiting her death sentence. Once rational nations are sanctioning marriage between those of the same sex and transgenderism and paedophilia are becoming more acceptable. The family is in crisis. The Catholic faith in the West is dying and this is what we get from the Church. 

Two days ago I wrote about what is nothing more than a Masonic prayer written by or under the authority of Pope Francis. A prayer that could be recited in the Lodge, a Synagogue a Mosque or around Stonehenge that offers a generic god proven by its preamble and the "Christian" prayer that follows.
9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms. He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which “entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion”.[17] As Christians, we are also called “to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours on a global scale. It is our humble conviction that the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment of God’s creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet”.[18]
 [18] “Global Responsibility and Ecological Sustainability”, Closing Remarks, Halki Summit I, Istanbul (20 June 2012).

What are we to think when the Vicar of Christ issues an Encyclical that states that we should accept the world "as a sacrament of communion?" This is not his quote, it is a quote from the close of a an Istanbul meeting. Why would the Holy Catholic Church use such a description that is nothing more that a blasphemy to the true "Sacrament of Communion." 

Only one drop friends.

Lawsuits - shutting down the opposition and the truth!

One of the undercurrents of the attempt by Father Thomas Rosica to sue this writer (he later states that he "had no intention to sue") is a not-so-soft, fascism against the new media and that includes Blogs.

LifeSiteNews.com spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves against the former homosexual prostitute and choice advocate Raymond Gravelle who sadly, was a Catholic priest. Gravelle died a suffering death from cancer. He has met the Lord and it is the Lord who will judge him for what he did.

Now, the Peel District School Board in Mississauga, west of Toronto has announced the intent to sue LifeSiteNews over an article about a workshop by two teachers.

The question for the school board is why are you suing LifeSiteNews? Why are you not disciplining teachers who bring their political agenda into the classroom and promote ideas against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of parents?

Will the Board now come and sue me for reporting this news?


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/details-of-peel-region-board-legal-threat-against-lifesite

Featured Image
Details of Peel Region Board Legal threat against LifeSiteNews
June 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - On June 4 LifeSite was delivered a complaint letter from the law firm Keel Cottrelle, acting on behalf of Ontario’s Peel District School board, threatening legal action regarding two April news reports by LSN journalist Peter Baklinski. See a copy of the full complaint here.
The reports regarding one particular workshop given by two lesbian teachers that were cited, “Lesbian: I use math class to teach young kids about homosexuality so I can ‘hide’ it from parents” and “Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay ‘marriage’, starting at 4-years-old” are claimed to “have included inappropriate, aggressive and hateful comments regarding Board representatives,” among other claims. 
LifeSite rejects all of the claims and has responded with demands that the Peel board immediately either withdraw in writing the allegations or immediately provide adequate particulars supporting them.
We have also challenged the notion that the School Board has any legal interest or claim in this matter since, for one thing, the workshop leader began the presentation on which LifeSiteNews reported with the following statement:
"My name is Hiren Mistry. I am from the Peel District School Board, but I, along with the team we're with today, are not representing the board. We're representing ourselves as individuals who are committed to equity and inclusive work.”
LifeSite did not specifically say in its reports that the two named teachers were employees of the school board.
As well, there does not appear to have been any evidence that the school board had any connection with the event sponsored by the pro-LGBT group Jer’s Vision, held in a public venue at Toronto City Hall.
LifeSite reporter Peter Baklinski registered to attend the conference and was soon called by the founder of Jer’s Vision, Jeremy Dias, who stated he was an “avid reader” of LifeSite, which he considered to be “good work” and that he was “thrilled” that Baklinski was coming to his conference on implementing an agenda promoting same-sex “marriage,” gender fluidity and other controversial issues.
Dias stated he was “super happy to comment or share, or anything like that,” and said he would help the LifeSite reporter, “if you need, like, an interview for anything.” Therefore, it was expected that Baklinski would naturally be attending the open-to-the-public conference as a LifeSite news reporter.
The complaint also demanded that LifeSite remove from its reports the images in the reports that included primary grade children as well as a video of Alicia Gunn instructing young students on homosexuality.
LifeSite notes all such images were re-publications of images previously published on the Internet by other parties.
One of the disputed images originated from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation on Ontario Voice (EFTO) website, which is accessible to the general public. As well, that image does not show the faces of the children.
LSN made use of the image of Pam Strong reading to students at Ellengale Public School without any knowledge of opposition by the School Board to its prior publication by EFTO. LSN has demanded answers to five questions from the School Board regarding this image.
The embedded video clip in one of the stories, LifeSite notes, was produced by TVO in 2008, and is featured on the Ontario Teachers Insurance Plan (OTIP) website, which is accessible to the general public.  LSN linked to the video without knowledge of any opposition by the School Board to is prior publication by TVO and OTIP.
LifeSite has demanded answers from the School Board to five questions concerning the video.
Baklinski attended the conference with his video and audio equipment so that his reports would be entirely factual and 100 percent accurate.
LSN has denied the allegation that LSN was requested to cease recording at the workshop. 
There were no rules or conditions communicated by the organizers prior to the event regarding recording by this known journalist who was registered to attend. One organizer did raise an objection, but this objection was not raised before the proceedings had ended.  In any event, none of the video recording by Baklinski was incorporated in the reports.
LSN also denies the allegations that the two LSN reports have “incited hateful responses which call the safety of the individuals into question.”
Both reports simply relate the content of a public workshop in the presenters’ own words. At no point did the reporter engage in mere speculation, opinion or innuendo. Strong and Gunn are solely responsible for the consequences of their public comments.
LifeSite emphasizes that there are legal and constitutional issues raised by the workshop which are matters of public interest, and that the members of the public rely upon a free press to bring these issues to their attention.
LifeSite demands that the PSB retract its threat of legal action and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit that will only result in public embarrassment.
LifeSite instead urges the Board to investigate, as part of its obligations to the parents of the Peel School Board, and others,  the substance of the candid admissions made by two of its employees that they are trying to change the belief systems of the students to whom their parents entrusted them.