Category Archives: Catholicism
The beautiful video from Christopher Ferrara (that I have from Veneremus Cernui) points out to another willfully confusing statement of Francis: that we should pray for the Synod.
This is another of those slimy statement from our slimy man. One who thinks that God evolves can only want to mean that we should pray that the Synod helps us to recognise that He (allegedly) does. Which is heresy and, I would add, blasphemy. Mr Ferrara doesn’t say it so openly, but one gets the message anyway.
But Francis does not criticise only that. He criticises the “gossip”. Which means “I want want we hold as the truth to change, but if you say you are afraid of just that you are gossiping”.
Francis clearly would want us to say nothing before the nuclear explosion, and welcome it as the beginning of a new age afterwards. Fat chance, Frankie.
These methods remind me of those tactics always in use in big office before restructurings. Before it happens, the usual people say “let us not worry about it, we do not know what will happen”. After it has happened, they say “well, it’s too late for complaints now”.
Make no mistake: this restructuring will not work in the end.
There is an excellent blog post from Louie Verrecchio imagining what Francis would say if he were… a Catholic interested in Catholicism instead of a faithless, wordly old man interested in his own self-aggrandisement. I suggest you click here and read the post in its entirety.
I would like here to develop a bit on the point and wonder whether this disgrace of a Pope could not see in environmental issues a way to achieve popularity the easy way.
We all know Francis has already put a huge bomb under the chair of the Church, but the reaction of sincere Catholics who actually believe in heaven and hell defused the bomb before the explosion. The following months showed even to the most stupid (and Francis is not so stupid) that a huge conflict awaits him if he pulls a stunt in Kasper style next October. The events in October also indicate that this here is not a brave man; and we already know that he is a real Jesuit, intended here in the usual meaning of “sly, oily, slippery, accommodating little piece of work”.
What is, then, such a man to do? Could it not be that faced with the choice of being remembered as the Pope of Destruction or the Pope of the Environment, he would choose the second role and a quiet life?
Francis might be content with becoming the Apostle Of Mother Earth. The White Mandela for the stupid masses looking for the World Uncle. The Friend Of The Squirrels. You get the point.
This is easy to do, and not fraught with the potential for self-destruction a Kasperite Campaign starting in October would have not for the Church (which is Indefectible) but for his own very backside.
The issue of the environment would allow him to reach both these objectives: self-promotion among the unthinking masses, and avoidance of a nuclear conflict that could well destroy him in the reputation, if not in the office.
A Pope lives of his being seen as the spiritual guide of Catholics. As the spiritual guide of hippies amidst the ferocious condemnation of Catholics no Papacy has ever been, is, or will ever be worth a dime. And yes, the world at large would still recognise who are the Catholics; even – actually, first of all – those who insult them all the time.
I do not know what the man thinks. I think he is cunning, but I do not think he is intelligent. Actually, he seems to me clearly less endowed than average in that department. He might well feel safe in October, and perhaps use his own environ-mental popularity overdose to think he can pull the Kasper-stunt without danger. But this is rather far-fetched, and contrasts with the obvious CV of a man who was, all his life, not prone to vocal conflict, particularly when dangerous to him. Francis always went for the easy way: the populist rhetoric, the Pinocchio masses, the rides on the bus, the ecu-maniacal stunts, all that pleases the crowds, without ever risking being transferred to the Tierra Del Fuego.
Enviro-Idiot. That would be one possible role for Francis, particularly if it helps him to spare us a nuclear conflict of communion for adulterers. He might well warm to the job. I even hope he will, so that his mind is occupied – and his ego satisfied – elsewhere. Until we get freed from his presence, and pray and hope that a better successor will be given to tend to us.
How we have fallen. Reduced to hope that a Pope might be inducing by wordly popularity to forgive Christ a tad less, or not spit to his face like a mad Roman soldier…
One day all this will be gone. Let’s hope that day comes soon.
The recent news about Bishop Finn (and less recent news about Bishop Barros of Chile) allow us to make a very short reflection about Francis:
If you are a decent Bishop, the Pope will let you cook with the slow burner until you are forced out, because it seems you have not always been perfect in the past.
If you are one of his friends, or friends of the friends, you can be an obvious protector of pedophile priests, and he will make you bishop ignoring the massive, massive popular protest.
Francis is like a drunken, inept, stupid king of the past.
One is reminded of William II, the unfortunate son of the more famous William the Conqueror:
arrogant, inept, impious, and possibly a sodomite.
P.s. I read here the open accusation that Bishop Barros would be a homo himself. It would explain the “friends of the friends” connection wonderfully.
Truly, Francis is one of the devil.
Father Z has an interesting mail from a reader whose old priest encouraged the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel after Mass, whilst the new man dismisses the thing as “part of some ultra-conservative agenda”.
I can relate to this as I know a parish where exactly that has happened (the prayer used to be said, and now isn’t), albeit the new man does not appear to be less conservative, rather more afraid of his bishop.
There can be no denying that the prayer to St Michael is radically catholic and, as such, unacceptable to NuChurch. People who recite it must say words like “battle”, “wickedness”, “devil”, “host”, “hell”, “satan”, “ruin of souls” to mention only some parts.
A pagan priest in Francis’ style does not want you to think even for a moment of yourself as engaged in a war, rather in a “dialogue”. He does not like to speak of “wickedness”, much less the one of the devil: he prefers to address the supposed injustices and inequalities in this life. He dares to hope (and is, actually, rather persuaded of that) that hell is empty of human souls, if hell exists at all. He rejects the very concept of “ruin of souls” as referred to the sin of his sheep (adultery, fornication, sodomy), and if something like that must be admitted he prefers to mention it in connection with bankers, oil men, and managers of mining companies.
There can be no doubt that the very invitation to recite such a prayer – nay, the very teaching of it, as the prayer must be, nowadays, taught to your parishioners – is a clear indication of the priest’s desire to engage in exactly that battle the “Francispriest” wants you to forget. In my experience, there are still an awful lot of priests around – Novus Ordo priests, I mean – who have sincere fear of the Lord and interest in the salvation of the souls entrusted to them. But being smart, they recognise that their biggest – or one of their biggest – obstacles lies not in the secular world around them, but in the bishop above them. The prayer to St Michael is one of the ways of calling the souls to arms whilst remaining within the narrow confines of what the bishop considers acceptable, or would not have the nerve to officially discourage. Again, I see this happening – in my frequent Novus Ordo exploration trips – fairly often: a testament, I think, of the good will of many priests, and of the bad will of a couple of bishops.
How to help the good priest in his work? By praying not only for him and for the poor, trampled Church, but also by praying the Prayer to St. Michael with renewed zeal. I recite the prayer every day I see obvious dykes or faggots in the street, which in the modern cesspool known as London is an all but infrequent experience.
Good priests are helped by praying, as is prayer in general.
The more NuChurch does not want us to pray, the more we do.
It seems to me the more The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) feels isolated, the more he tries to counterattack with assertions that can only be defined as opposed to Christianity, if not outright blasphemous at least in their end result.
Firstly, Francis has taken on this disgusting (heretic, possibly blasphemous) habit of telling us that whoever does not follow him in whatever heretical (blasphemous?) novelties he preaches displeases God, has no God, is dead inside, or something of the sort.
This time, as you might have read, it is “dialogue”. For two thousand years, Christians wanted to convert. In the age of Francis, suddenly conversion is nowhere to be found. Instead we have “dialogue”, which basically boils down to giving legitimacy to error against a very vague hope that our blabbering may persuade someone to convert out of us telling him to hold on to his Koran.
Who the heck is this old nincompoop; this ass in white; this fat, arrogant, lewd old man to tell us that not only God has changed (an heresy in itself, and a blasphemy in that it obviously denies a fundamental attribute of God’s Divine Perfection), but that he is the legitimate authority, the Chosen One to tell us exactly how God has changed, and how we must behave in order not to displease this, erm, new god Francis apparently knows so well? Give me a stake, and I’ll show you how such arrogance should be fittingly punished (after due deposition, of course; see above in the fixed “pages” for more details).
Then there is the other habit, which enrages me beyond words (even the strong ones), of always comparing Christians to Pharisees.
The evil clown obviously wants to persuade you that the Christians of today are exactly what the Pharisees of yore were: wrong. As the Pharisees were stubbornly attached to an old religion, made obsolete by Christ, Christians who believe in everything in which Christianity has always believed are now obsolete, passé, and left behind by a new god and a new religion; a religion consisting in adoring the Goddess Of Mercy and Francis, her Fat Prophet.
These two heretical, and in the end blasphemous habits both point out to a core message: forget Christianity. We are in a new time of mercy, and this new time has a new god and new rules, and those who follow the Only God and the (forcibly) immutable rules are the bad ones.
My blood boils everytime I read Francis’ pagan preaching; a preaching coming from the Pope, of all people; a satanical cocktail of lies and deception that can only be explained with God’s wrath at his faithless and stupid children; so faithless and so stupid, in fact, that they even reject the concept of God’s wrath. It pains me beyond words that whenever this heretical (or blasphemous) propaganda is spitted by that disgusting mouth, I seldom read more than polite disagreement.
Call him an idiot, a nincompoop, an evil man. That’s who he is, and you know it. Polite disagreement will not make him stop. Worldwide ridicule might.
Let us say it again: the stake is what this man has deserved. I doubt it would be enough to save a man as rotten as this, but you never know.
I am, at least, all in favour of making the attempt.
Rick Santorum is weighing his option as a candidate to be President, and I can’t say I like the way things are going.
Asked whether he would participate to a so-called same-sex marriage (you know: that kind of circus where two perverts smash their own perversion in your face and ask you to “celebrate” it) Mr Santorum is quoted with the following words:
“I would not,” Santorum replied to radio host Hugh Hewitt. When asked why not, he said, “Because I don’t, I’ve just self, as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”
What the Elton does that even mean?
“A violation of my faith?” Is he apologising? What is he talking about, Truth or the Highway Code?
What about “an abomination”?
And what the Elton (again) does the “support” thing mean? How can anyone “support” anyone else in the latter’s doing something that one knows is gravely evil?
This all sounds so stupid and hypocritical. The message Santorum sends (as read in the linked article) sounds so much like: “I will give you all the support I can, but alas, I can’t be at the ceremony itself”. This sounds like the boy saying “I would like playing soccer with you, but my father has said I must make homework instead; so very sad, but I must obey”.
If Mr Santorum believes in hell and heaven (which I am sure he does), he must say so openly. He must say that he does not take part to the circus ceremony because the entire matter, and not only the ceremony, is gravely evil and bound to send the main actors to hell (and possibly those who area accomplices in their sin; I have no idea to what extent they would be punished in the same way, though I am sure they would be punished harshly) with the Sodom Express.
It’s not about what Mr Santorum’s religion forces him to do, obviously with a degree of reluctant sadness as it clearly emerges from his words. It is about the very objective reality of right and wrong. If Mr Santorum thinks he can take refuge in a kind of “get out of embarrassment card” because hey, it’s his religion, but you can be assured of his “support” in everythign that does not involve participating in ceremonies, we have here another one who has sold his integrity for the sake of a dream that will never become reality anyway.
Man up, Mr Santorum. Stand up to the Truth. Don’t dance around the subject. You will never be President anyway. The best thing you can do is to contribute to the shift of the US political landscape towards sanity.
I am sick and tired of these politicians thinking they must be everything to everyone. The exceptional politician – as opposed to the usual little whore so common in Western democracies – is the one who fights for his own Christian vision of the world and tries his best to shift the voters on his position. It seems to me Mr Santorum is doing exactly the opposite.
Is there *one* candidate who is still ready to stand for Christian values? I dread to read of Ted Cruz making the same mistake Santorum is making. Perhaps he already did, but please don’t send me any link, my old heart asks for some respite at this time.
Santorum must man up and say loud an dclear how things stand. This will be more important as the US Supreme Court – as it appears certain now – will sit squarely on the side of Satan in a matter of one or two months now.
Santorum can’t seriously think the Supreme Court decision will allow him to say “hey, relax, there’s nothing I can do now”. The real battle begins now. Roe vs Wade did not end the abortion controversy, either. He will have to take a stand, and “I would support them” is nothing like taking a stand.
Actually, it is more like bending over.
I have been kindly directed to an excellent blog post written from Ann Barnhardt; this post concerns on the one hand the similarities between Francis and Obama and on the other hand – and far more importantly – the similarities between the way Francis cajoles the stupid masses and the way Satan tried to tempt Our Lord.
The similarity between the two main populists of our time has been already stressed on this blog several times. The second part hasn’t, and I invite you to take the time to read this long but beautifully written post to become aware of what is going on with this unspeakable Pontificate.
As always, Barnhardt does not mince words: for example, speaking of of Obama and the Unholy Father she writes:
“They are both stupid, babbling fools, completely incoherent when not reading off a script prepared by others. Both are Marxists. Both are media darling fronts for a thuggish regime…”
Harsh? You bet. But seriously: how can truth be condemned because it is a harsh truth? “Babbling fool” is, in fact, the gentlest thing that can be said of both, all other possibilities being even worse for their eternal salvation.
It all boils down to one point: Francis has, like Obama, chosen earth over heaven. And like Obama, very probably he does not believe in the latter. The consequence of this is that secular thinking that always was, is and always will be the tool of Satan to harvest as many souls as he can.
I invite you to read the article, and to say a prayer for the brave author.
It isn’t often that one gets the truth said whole, even when it is harsh.
As many of you know, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco has been involved in a controversy for some time now, because he insists on unspeakable things like demanding that teachers in Catholic schools live and teach in a Catholic way.
Things have now massively escalated as a group of soi-disant prominent
Catholics dissenters have bought an entire page of the San Francisco Chronicle to ask that the Archbishop be removed, as his obvious Catholicism is out of place in the diocese and could keep other dissenters from deceiving themselves.
I think only one of two can apply here:
1. The dissenters have really – as they claim – tried to obtain the Archbishop's removal through unofficial channels; they have failed, and now bitch in public like it's Elton John Day.
2. The dissenters have been told by friendly sources in Rome: “we can't just move the man out of the blue; but make some Lio and we will take it as an excuse to remove him because hey, he fosters divisions”.
I hope the first, and fear the second. It seems to me very much in tune with this satanical Pontificate that mob-pressure in Stalin-style be used as the excuse for the purge. The obvious Catholicism of Archbishop Cordileone must be unwelcome in Francis' entourage, and runs counter to the anti-Catholic rubbish the Unholy Father goes spitting out of his godless mouth practically every day. I am, therefore, not very optimistic, albeit it can still be that Francis prefers not to create a precedent of the sort, particularly after his extremely controversial appointment in Chile.
The main point of today is, though, a different one: if we had a halfway decent Pope, the public call for his removal would not make any sense both financially and as a PR instrument. Irrespective of how this situation is going to develop, the very fact that the call was published shows how emboldened dissenters feel in the so-called “age of mercy”, where being Catholic is considered unmerciful.
Let us increase our prayers not only for the good Archbishop, but for the end of this satanical Pontificate.
There is a lot of talk about the “recognition” of the SSPX as a Catholic organisation from the Argentinian Government, and with the obvious help of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. Personally, everything seems very straightforward to me, and nothing to get anyone excited.
Bring a Catholic, non-profit organisation obviously gives a legal status in Argentina. Whether it is about tax treatment, or the issuing of visas, or who knows how many other things, being recognised as Catholic has a bearing on your legal status as seen by the Argentinian Government.
The SSPX would obviously never say “we aren't Catholic”. Just as obviously, no archdiocese which does not want to cause a huge uproar – and big trouble with the Vatican, very possibly – would say to the Argentinian Government “they aren't Catholic”. Besides, I imagine that rules of Catholic decency and common courtesy do not allow for this kind of under-the-beltline bickering.
Result? The Archdiocese says to the Argentinian Government “why, we have internal disagreements; but of course, of course they're Catholics”.
Again, I would not want to be the Archbishop who has to explain to the Catholic Press why the SSPX are allegedly “not Catholic”. He would lose face before he loses the argument.
Therefore, the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has done the only thing it could reasonably expected to do: confirm the reality on the ground.
Of course this is no canonical recognition, something that is nothing to do with how a Government sees you. Of course the SSPX is not now the obedient subject of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. What has simply happened is that the Archdiocese has had the common sense of recognising the reality on the ground: the SSPX is a Catholic organisation, and not less so because of unresolved issues.
There's nothing more than this, I think. It all seems very straightforward. Nothing very exciting has happened.
Unless it be this: that those outlets – not the Vatican – who described the SSPX as schismatic might have some explaining to do. But the latter weren't much fazed by facts beforehand, and will not be swayed by this further occasion for a reality check now.
The SSPX is Catholic. Dogs bark. The sun goes up on the East.
A painfully beautiful blog post addresses the issue that it in our suffering hearts in these disgraceful times.
Where does it end?
Will Francis kiss a Trannie in the mouth one day? Will he give him a dildo as a birthday present because “Jesus would have wanted to let him feel included?” Will he dance in a tutu in St Peter's Square? Will he promote the beatification cause of Saul Alinsky?
I do not know where it does end. I know that it will end when the Lord decides that we have been punished enough, and when our yearning for things as they were leads us to reject the abominations of FrancisChurch.
But even in these times, and most of all in these times, we must keep in mind that it is not for us to question at which point the Church is not the Church anymore, because there is no such point. The Church is Indefectible even if Francis and Bishop Cupich makevlewd sex acts in public. She is Indefectible because the Lord says so. Therefore, nothing that can happen will lead me to question Our Lord's words, and seek for reassurance that “he is still right”. Forget “still”.
What we do, is to question at every step the antics of those (from the Pope down) who defile the Church. It might be that few of us do. It might be that very many of those who are born Catholics in this generation will be damned. But if this is so, they will be damned because they chose to believe lies, not because the Church is a lie.
Whenever you get discouraged, reflect on this: the lowest point of the Church was, very arguably, not during the Arian crisis or the Great Schism or the Protestant revolt. It was, arguably, when her first designated head, the one slated for being Her pastor in chief on earth, the one chosen by Christ as the first stone of the Divine Edifice, denied God three times.
The Church recovered then. She will recover now.
Where does it end?
We do not know. But we stand resolute in our intention to condemn bad pastors whatever happens, and stand with the Church whatever happens.
The always unbelievably satanical Nick Clegg (head of a fifth-wheel party largely noticed in the last five years for its vast uselessness) has proposed that a new profession be introduced in Britain: the professional surrogate for fags wanting to “have a child”.
Apparently, such monstrous “uterus for hire” agreements are already legal in the Socialist Republic of California, so if it is good for a country of legalised potheads it cannot be bad for LibDem Britain, can it now?
Clegg is not slow to point out that there are more fags wanting a new toy than women with a fully unnatural desire to have a baby in their womb for nine months and then… give it away. Life is astonishing, isn't it?
So let's put money into the equation, says Cleggy, Cameron's demure and very girlish boyfriend, and let us hire some prostitute uterus ready to be occupied for money, for nine months, for the pleasure of two fags. I am sure, absolutely sure, the same Clegg would consider the usual prostitution (the occupation of a sexual organ, for probably no longer than eight to twelve minutes, for money, and for the pleasure of one man) immoral; but hey, logic has left the man a long time ago, and I am afraid he will rediscover its cold touch only when he finds himself in hell.
It is completely pathetic how this fifth-wheel party tries to gain relevance by obsessing over the “rights” of an extremely tiny minority of perverts, hoping that the growing mass of the accomplices in the sin of sodomy may give them their vote because they… help fudge-packers to pack more fudge with such enthusiasm.
I doubt the strategy will fly. Fifth wheels are fifth wheels, and everyone looking at the car knows they don't count much.
Nick “Girlish boyfriend” Clegg might discover it very soon, too.
I had joked some days ago, and said I missed the Trannie at Francis' Easter stunt.
Turns out I was wrong: one of the “women” (“Trannii probati”, evidently…) who got their feet washed was, you got it, a Trannie. Said Trannie also had the effrontery of receiving communion, at the hands of another priest, and live on Television, shortly thereafter.
If Francis knew of this, the degree of evil of this man clearly goes beyond what even I had imagined, making nothing less than a satanic mockery of Jesus' washing of the feet of His disciples.
But let us imagine that this was not the case. Let us imagine that Francis hasn't noticed the voice of the man, or in his innocence (provided such an old lewd man like him has any left) really thought her a woman, or has not noticed the man's Adam's apple (which, for all I know, should be an inescapable giveaway even if the man stays there without uttering a word, and hidden behind a ton of hair). Let us imagine all this, out of a charitable attitude the man (Francis, I mean here) does not deserve in the least.
Even if Francis has, in hypothesis, not willingly washed the feet of a Trannie, what has happened goes to show what the consequences of these media stunts are. Jails do not gather the most beautiful flowers of humanity. The Church certainly belongs in a jail, but the Church belongs there in order to convert or reform the sinners, not to encourage them in their sins. The latter is, most certainly, what has happened with this disgraceful episode.
There is no possible universe in which a Trannie can present himself for communion dressed like a woman – and therefore fully embracing, for everyone to see, his own perversion – and receive worthily. Her very attitude, clothes, walk, talk, in short: all her person will scream: “I am in mortal sin!”
If we can accept a world in which that is not mortal sin, then nothing must be a mortal sin. If we make excuses for a man dressed like a woman, there is no case in which we cannot fabricate excuses. If it is possible to walk, act, dress, and therefore live in perpetual defiance of Our Lord without this being a mortal sin, then it is impossible to see how the public concubine should not be able to receive communion. If we make allowance for, say, a fantasy “repentance” just before receiving, we must make the same allowance for the child rapist just before he proceeds to rape the child, and then again just before killing him.
Mortal sin is not only the specific act of, say, sodomy, or fornication between concubines. Mortal sin is already in the public scandal: in the obvious, and public, defiance of Our Lord's laws. This is why the public concubine is in mortal sin qua public concubine, and not only if she has sex. This is why the very fact of living in sin in front of the community excludes from communion even if Mr Concubine happens to be secretly impotent, and Mrs Concubine happens to be the frigidest bitch alive.
This is another grave scandal born of the immense stupidity – even excluding the evil intent – of this pontificate.
A Trannie had his feet washed, in place of men chosen in order to remind us of the Apostles. Men who had, traditionally, to be people of tested repute in their own community: viri probati. In the past age of sanity, even an immoral man would have been considered, and emphatically so, not worthy of having his feet washed on Maundy Thursday. We live in times in which a Trannie has his feet washed and no doubt many idiots, even among Catholics, wax lyrical about the “peripheries”, and all that rubbish.
Huge blunder or willed, satanical mockery? I do not know.
But it tells you everything you need to know about this Pontificate.
“Remaining in the Truth of Christ”, the “five Cardinals' book” already the object of the famous “raid” at the Vatican (where manipulation, theft, and lies are nowadays called “mercy”) is now available in the Polish version, and carries the endorsement of the Polish Bishop's Conference.
One cannot imagine many warning shots clearer and louder than this one. Instead of expressing themselves in favour of the Sacrament in single statements, the Polish Bishops endorse the entire book, en bloc.
Let us skip the niceties here, and let us say straight who the addressee of the endorsement is: the Unholy Father himself, as he lives and… eats. It is not really thinkable that the Bishops would make such a statement merely to slap a couple of German prelates. Rather, they are putting their very face on the line, and stating clearly that they are compelled to defend Christ's teaching wherever the attack may come from.
It would be beautiful if other Bishops' Conferences would follow the example, but I doubt there will be any other takers. In the chaotic hours after the homosexual Relatio post disceptationem the Poles were exemplary, other Western Bishops' Conferences certainly weren't.
It is good that these warnings are sent. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Those within the Church who are ready to fight and to fight hard – and to fight hard against the Pope, if needs be – can do nothing better than to say it out loud, and let whoever has ears to hear.
The other way – the naive hope that there is no need for such warnings, because they could be interpreted as hostile to the Unholy Father; who, being a nice chap, doesn't want to do anything naughty anyway… – only emboldens the enemy; and yes, I am talking of Francis. I do not think the Polish bishops have many illusions as to who the enemy is. They do not say it openly, of course, but it's clear enough.
Francis understands very well the universal language of a – metaphorical – punch on the nose. Last October he showed how ready he was to backpedal, though not without some bitching to let us know how cross he was. But the bitching was merely the petty revenge of the bad loser: in the end he knew what he had to do, and he caved in to the pressure because he immediately realised he could not afford a massive conflict with his own bishop.
This, my friends, is the way. Those prelates who still care for their own salvation must keep sending warnings, and at the same time put their face on the line: if given the choice between remaining in the truth of Christ and selling out to the lies of Francis, they won't choose Francis.
In a rather spectacular moves, Proddie Congregations representing 16 million Black Americans have severed ties with PCUSA. Most importantly, they have done so with extremely clear words, which clearly deny PCUSA the quality of even being “Christian”. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, they certainly aren’t.
As there are certainly much less than 16 million Presbyterian in the USA this does not appear to me to be a defection. Rather, it is an official declaration of the PCUSA paganism after the latter’s “embracing” of sexual perversion because Jesus was, you know, so repressed…
Well done, the Proddies! Perhaps this will be one step towards understanding that immutable Truth can only be solidly based on the Church Christ founded. All the rest is like being a small ship exposed to the ocean’s winds, and scattered here and there as the men at the helm try to keep the course amidst the mutable wave of congregants’ opinions. Compare with us Catholics, who have a granitic teaching at our disposal, set in stone and guaranteed by Christ And His Church, and which not even a pothead like Francis will ever be able to change (no matter what the pothead says).
It is, to this humble observer, very funny that the minority towards which most of the social justice rhetoric of the White Liberal is directed are those who condemn the same liberal white asses whose gospel has been reduced to sexual perversion and social issues (this reminds one of Francis, clearly). But then it’s always so: those who speak a lot of social justice are generally trying to hide the issues they have in the middle of their crotch.
Still: the (formerly) oppressed and downtrodden are the one who have the gut to call the lie on their white… white knights’ fake gospel and cry out loud: “shut up and repents, you pagans and perverts! You have no right to call yourself Christians!”. Hilarious!
Now, I do not doubt the Unholy Father is ready to give PCUSA all the patents of Christianity – and even of Catholicism, if requested; it is known he leaves the “details” to the “theologians” – they may desire.
This should lead us to some sad reflections about the Pope we are currently being punished with: formally still a Catholic, but a man whose entire forma mentis is, like the one of PCUSA, in perfect contradiction with basic Christianity.
I suggest the man converts to Presbyterianism.
He would fit very well over there.
This article repeats in a better way what I have stated many times on this blog: the more an orthodox Muslim one is, the more likely he (or she) is to become violent.
Hundreds of young Muslims are leaving Europe to fight (and be killed, say I, rather soon) with the ISIS or other violent groups, mainly but not only in Iraq and Syria. It does not make sense to claim that they are “dispossessed” or “marginalised”. Mohammed Atta was neither, nor were his accomplices. Osama was a wealthy man. It just doesn't wash.
Rather, these European/Western/Westernised Muslims have, on average, a better education than their garden variety correligionists in traditional Muslim Countries. When they study Islam, they do so thoroughly. When they decide to embrace it, they embrace it whole.
Not for them the rubbish of the “religion of peace”. This is what they will tell you, because Islam is such a heap of excrements than ever lying, deceiving and denying one's own religion is meritorious if it advances the cause. T
No. They will delve into Islam and understand what it is about: a ruthless war of conquest, based on terror and blood. The more intelligent and educated they are, the better they understand it. Some will pretend not to know; some will recoil in disgust and perhaps seek conversion. Some will embrace the violence. As we are reliably informed (I have reported about it) of secret conversions to Christianity taking place all over the Arab world, it is obvious that very many are embracing the ideology to its obvious end: violence.
As we prepare to celebrate Easter, we are reminded that Christ has won already. But even in the joy of Easter Day we must not forget that evil infidels are lusting for our blood and plotting to wreak havoc among us as I write these very lines.
Islamic violence It's not about their poverty.
It's about our stupidity.