The so-called Deuterocanonical Books are seven books of the Old Testament which were not originally written in Hebraic, but in Greek. However, they were considered by the Jews themselves to be part of the body of Sacred Scripture. Their acceptance was a fact at the time of Christ, and Our Lord never challenged their authenticity. This is why, for fifteen Centuries, all Christian counted 46 books in the Old Testament, including the Deuterocanonical (“second canon”) seven ones.
Then a sex-obsessed German Heresiarch showed up, and – I think, mainly because not liking the content of some of these books – decided to expunge the Old Testament of them.
I do not know – and do not care – whether Luther had at his disposal the historical facts about the Deuterocanonical Books. Faith is not based on historical research. It is based on the acceptance of truths handed down to us by the generations before us.
Luther showed, by daring to even tamper with the Bible, a stunning degree of rebellion, a willingness to discard what fifty generations before him had never had a problem accepting. Mind blowing rebellion, sheepishly perpetuated to this day by those born of Protestants – less and less, one must say – and unquestioningly accepting the mutilation of Sacred Scripture. Which they must do, lest they start questioning the entire Protestant mindset in the first place.
This is all bad enough. But I wonder if it is so different – though the methods are adapted – to the attitude of those who, within the Church, dare to tell us exactly the same thing: that what sixty-five generations of Catholics have believed must now be discarded. You see this in the constant perverted preaching of Father Jeanine Martin, Society of Fags, or in Pope's Francis obvious symphaty with every form of Statalism, Socialism or Communism that happens to cross his rather dull mind.
At the root of all is rebellion, refusal to accept truth handed down to us.
Luther, Francis and Father James “Elton” Martin, Society of Fags, aren't much different after all.
The small picture you see on the left comes from the Facebook page of the German section of Vatican Radio.
It is not only that the picture is uncannily exact. The troubling matter here is that the people at the German Vatican radio would think this is a laughing matter. They seem to think, in a word, that all this Pope-talking-like-a-damn-Proddie affair is a very funny development! And being this a site controlled by the Vatican – where a sarcastic approach to the Pope, like you have on this site, would never be tolerated – it is clear that this rendition of the greatest heresiarch of the XVI century and what could well become the greatest heresiarch of the XXI Century is met with… approval.
I cannot end without mentioning the commenters who praise the initiative. I hope they are Protestants. Actually I think they are, whether they know it or not.
Such is the state of the Church at this time.
Where is the Catholic Trump, ready and willing to drain the swamp of heresy, perversion and utter stupidity?
If you hate Catholicism, but can't say it out loud, you will find one thousand and one ways to send the message that Catholicism is a wise choice at best, and oppressive machine at worst. You will, most importantly, always convey the impression that there is nothing particularly right in Catholicism, much less that everything that is not Catholic is wrong.
You can accept a crucifix with a hammer and sickle, mock those who count their rosaries, or simply explain to the half-asleep that Catholicism is this or the other, which is exactly the contrary of what your Grandma always thought it was.
Suddenly everyone is good in his own way, and we must admire all of them because the Pope, in his vast mercy, either promotes or does not criticise them. Other religions, heresies, no religion at all. If one follows his conscience, who is he to judge?
We now know of another way.
The Council in Rome decides to dedicate a square to Martin Luther.
Once-Catholic (hopefully, at least) Cardinal Marx is on record with the following words:
“Luther did not aim to split the Church, but, with his calls to reform, wished to draw attention to grievances that obscured the message of the Gospel,”
“After 50 years of joint ecumenical dialogue, it is possible for a Catholic Christian to read Luther’s texts appreciatively, and to learn from his thoughts.”
The first statement cannot be the fruit of crass ignorance. It must be willed deception. Luther was not simply a reformer. He was a heretic. His home-made theology was at variance with the Church, and led countless in the same pit of error and probable perdition. To say that a heretic merely wants to “draw attention” to “grievances” is pure deception. I do not need to tell you what the Cardinal’s motivation is: the Kirchensteuer, and the resulting need to be mainstream, accepting of everything, ecu-maniacal, and simply wrong.
The second statement is just as interesting in its evil intent. To read from a Cardinal that it is possible to read the texts of the possibly worst Heresiarch ever appreciatively, and learn from his thoughts, is even worse than to say that it is possible for a Catholic Christian to read Mein Kampf appreciatively, and learn from Hitler’s thoughts; because whilst Luther hasn’t willingly staged a Holocaust, the devastation he has created, and the loss of souls he has enabled, vastly exceed the limited genocide, of limited human bodies, staged by Hitler.
Cardinal Marx should be defrocked. Not only he is useless as a priest; he is outright dangerous in even willingly inviting his own sheep to delve into in heresy and learn from it, at the same time downplaying the very heresy as a “call to reform”.
One thing the Cardinal should learn from Luther: to state openly that he is a heretic. I doubt we will see such a step from him.
The year 2017 – with the resulting “celebration” of the Heresiarch – is rapidly approaching.
One wonders how the Church in Germany will survive it.
Ah, the German Bishops. Always ready to fight against Catholicism. Clearly, they rank among Satan's most faithful allies.
You might remember the “survey” of some time ago; a survey which, if memory serves, was actually meant for priests, though the usual suspects encouraged their faithful to participate to the exercise and say what they find wrong in the Church's teaching, in a kind of orgy of democracy and populism.
Predictably, the results were that the astonishingly neglected – and arrogant their own part – German sheep either do not know important parts of the teaching, or consider it – wait for this – “heartless”, “unacceptable”, or the like.
You will, now, imagine these shameful but not unexpected findings would be the occasion for a loud mea culpa from the side of the shepherds, admitting that it is their most grievous fault that souls entrusted to their care may think that God is heartless, or, far more probably, are not even informed that Church rules concerning sexual morality are just not disposable, because they are from God. With which, actually, the discussion should come to an abrupt end.
And in fact, it being unthinkable that a Christian may deem God heartless and still call himself a Christian, the only explanation to such a brutal refusal of God's laws is that the sheep believe, and the shepherds allow them to believe, that these rules can and, indeed, must be changed.
God only will be able to look into the souls of the millions of confused non-Catholics who share such a thinking, and justly decide in every individual case when their guilt is worthy of hell and when the lack of proper teaching, or the bad example of their own shepherds, are bad enough to allow them to escape the ultimate punishment. But there can be no doubt in my mind that the bishops and priests themselves know perfectly well what the rules are and whence they come, and will have absolutely nowhere to hide when their day of reckoning comes.
A public condemnation of eternal Church rules as “heartless” – a condemnation clear enough, though thinly veiled behind the excuse of it being what the vox populi says – is something I had missed up to now, though this is probably merely due to my lack of attention. This bunch of idiots do not say “the people don't like and even harshly criticise the rules, so we must start a serious work of evangelisation because it's clear we have done everything wrong for decades”; no, they report to Rome what “the people” find “unacceptable”. They say: “Look, Francis: the sheep say the rules are heartless; therefore, they must be changed, or at least they must be “pastorally” raped until the sheep are halfway satisfied and keep paying the Kirchensteuer.
I expect this message to be sent with the usual subtle distinguos, and to be broadcast in a way that avoids danger for the bishops themselves. In the next months, methinks, we will hear these wolves reflect on how they can “more effectively” transmit Catholic teaching, whilst being “pastoral” regarding the grievances of the sheep. They find the teaching unacceptable, you see, so let's be “pastoral”. Still, the overall message will be clear enough, and this is how the German sheep will understand it: we, the good German pastors, are doing what we can to help you, dear sheep. Please, please keep paying the Kirchensteuer!
What a bunch of prostitutes in purple.
If you want to have incontrovertible evidence that post V II “ecumenism” is nothing else than a betrayal of Catholicism, look no further than at the reactions of German Lutherans to the rumours of an “ordinariate” for local, and hopefully converted Lutherans desirous to swim the Tiber.
The reaction of some of them was, as widely reported, of an initiative in contrast with the “ecumenical” work made by the Church in the past. They are, of course, perfectly right.
The initiative of actively caring for those Lutherans (hopefully) desirous to side with Truth is in absolute contrast with the mentality, widely spread in Germany, that we must look at Lutherans not as people believing in error and endangering their soul, but of people simply choosing an alternative path to Salvation and therefore to be left in peace; and truly, in a country where a Catholic Cardinal calls Luther “the common doctor” (this would be Lehmann, if memory serves) there is not much else to expect.
The decision to provide for German Ordinariates is, in fact, the opposite of Ecumenism as widely understood by the German Catholic clergy: no surprise our brothers and sisters in state of heresy begin to notice.
If the Ordinariates were to go on, though, one would have some serious worry about what kind of “Catholicism” the poor converts would be subjected to, as the priests able to really think and believe like Catholics seem to be in the minority. The task could be left to the well-equipped and perfectly trained Panzerdivisionen of the SSPX, of course, but my impression is Archbishop Mueller doesn’t like the way they have let him look like an amateur theologian with a penchant for heresy – a stingy remark, because deserved – and therefore no request for help is, I am very much afraid, going to reach Father Schmidberger.
This being Germany, one must consider the ever-present issue of the Kirchensteuer: it may well be that the Church in Germany, faced with the losses caused by the Kirchenaustritte, the exits from the Kirchensteuer-system, has decided that it is time to graze in foreign pastures a bit more assertively. But it really doesn’t make much sense, because if Salvation is in the cards anyway and everyone has his heart in the right place, it should be rather the same what one does, oder?
I am curious to see what the new converts will be taught about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They might discover some of their new teachers are just as Protestant as they do not want to be anymore.
Martin Luther, prominent heretic of the XVI century, believed in Mary Every-Virgin.
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact
Ulrich Zwingli, another prominent heretic of the XVI century, expressed himself on the perpetual virginity of Mary as follows:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
I do not have texts concerning that other prominent heretic of the time, John Calvin, but I am informed from an EWTN link (whence the other quotations also come) that he upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Now let us see what a prominent heretic of the XXI century, Gerhard Mueller, thinks about the matter:
[The doctrine is] “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
It is clear that of these four heretics, the first three still cling to the traditional Christian understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Heretics as they were, they still got something right here and there.
The fourth heretic, on the contrary, is completely detached from 2000 years of Christian belief.
One finds it, therefore, rather surprising that this chap be put at the head of the Vatican congregation entrusted with the task of… protecting Catholic doctrine.
It is fair to say Martin Luther would have been more fitting for the job.
Congratulations, Holy Father.
To remind you of the tragedy of heresy in this day, and perhaps also to make you smile (I am not aware on Good Friday one is not allowed to smile; not if he is Catholic, I mean; if you want to know how it is among Presbyterians you must ask them; though nowadays they’ll probably tell you you can do pretty much everything…) I would like to introduce you to the Luther Insult generator.
You click the page and immediately, without any preamble (the man was a very direct chap) you will be insulted in the modern rendition of an authentic Luther insult. To be insulted again, you just click the “insult me again” button anew.
You can read the entire list but seriously, it truly is not fun.
Personally, I am not enthusiastic about what I have been reading concerning Pope Benedict’s travel to Germany.
There is in this visit, it seems to me, too much accent on wrong ecumenism, and too little on right Catholicism.
Was it necessary to visit a former monastery now dedicated to a heretic, I wonder. And if it is really necessary to visit such a monastery, should not be the duty of a Catholic – even more so, of a Pope – to make clear to every non-Catholic that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and to explain to them that whilst one can be brought inside the Church in ways we cannot entirely fathom – how many have been saved by last-minute conversion, or perfect contrition before death, we will never know – the willed separation from the Only Church can easily lead to damnation? Isn’t the fight against error something that should be, in the mind of every sincere Christian – even more so, of a Pope – the paramount consideration, and come before every talk of “ecumenical dialogue”, every diplomatic consideration, every show of desire for a “unity” talked about as if it was a value in itself?
And what is the sense – I mean, the religious one; I fully understand the political motive – of traveling to a Protestant site and telling a congregation of assorted Lutherans that we should focus on what unites us? Has heresy been reduced to an aside, something you look at as if it were only a nasty stain on a beautiful painting, an annoying detail, something that should not be allowed to distract you from the main image? Isn’t it, in fact, exactly the contrary: that it is the very fact that we are all Christians that makes heresy so painful and such a wound in the body of Christianity, nay, in the body of Christ?
Isn’t it so, that the photos that will now be transmitted around the world – the Pope on the observer’s right; the head of the German heretics on the left; no obvious distinction in rank or dignity – create a powerful visual image of Catholicism and Heresy being two variants of the same Faith, with equal legitimacy? Isn’t it so, that the massive talk of ecumenical dialogue of the last days generates the impression that the “talks” between Catholics and Protestants be akin to the talks between, say, Israelis and Palestinians, that is: talks were two merely human political positions are opposed, instead of Divine Truth being opposed to Lie? Where does this lie comes from: from the father of lies, or from good-willed men of God happening to have a slight disagreement with Christ’s Church? Can you create a heretical movement and call yourself – or be treated by Catholics as if you were – a man of God? Luther made the work of the devil, full stop.
The photo you see above appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, with the caption: “The Pope takes place on the right, Nikolaus Schneider on the left”. The implied message is, dear reader, exactly the one you are thinking about.
With the usual acumen, Pope Benedict found the way of telling it rather straight about the matter of ecumenism and the wrong hopes it can engender. He is quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as saying:
“Ein selbstgemachter Glaube ist wertlos. Der Glaube ist nicht etwas, was wir ausdenken und aushandeln.“
I would translate as follows:
” A self-made Faith is valueless. Faith isn’t something that we make up and negotiate”
Beautiful, strong words, nicht wahr? What a pity, that he himself should weaken the very concept he has so beautifully expressed by traveling to Erfurt and giving millions of Germans the impression that Luther’s heresy has a dignity or legitimation in itself in the eyes of Catholicism. What a pity, that what can’t be negotiated in Catholicism be swept under the carpet, when the Pope himself says that Catholics and Lutherans should focus on the “great things they have in common”.
Last time I looked, having great things in common with Catholics wasn’t enough to avoid hell. Every pedophile has great things in common with normal people: would you tell him that he should not lose sight of all the great things he has in common with normal people, or would you rather suggest him that he, for the good of his soul, focuses on – cough – the big problem he has?
The comparison of a Protestant with a pedophile may seem strong, but if we look at the matter lucidly we must acknowledge that unless Truth has changed whilst we were in the bathroom, heresy is as big a threat to salvation now as it has always been. How many Protestant sanctuaries this or that Pope decides to visit will, I am afraid, not change an iota in the seriousness of the danger, but it will certainly play a role in how many people are exposed to that danger.
It seems to me that this visit has been – at least up to now – worse than a lost opportunity, rather a positive damage to Catholicism. I have lived in Germany many years and am painfully aware of the confusion reigning among common Catholics as to what is right, and of the unexpressed but palpable desire of wanting to consider Protestantism just another ice cream flavour, or the preference for a different shade of blue.
If you ask me, if this visit will have one effect it will be to reinforce this confusion.
You may think that the title of this blog post is a joke, but it isn’t.
Taking Lessons from Luther is exactly what our heroes, the “Conciliar Fathers”, should have done once come back to their diocese after V II. Luther would have told them that communion must be:
1. kneeling, and
2. on the tongue
That much is what the great Athanasius Schneider has implied in an interview given to Radio Maria Suedtirol (= Alto Adige), in German, and reported by kreuz.net.
In the words of the Bishop:
„Die Lutheraner haben bis vor kurzem und bis heute noch in den skandinavischen Ländern die kniende Mundkommunion bewahrt.“
The Lutherans have preserved until a short time ago, and to this day in the Scandinavian countries, communion kneeling and on the tongue”.
According to him, the idea of communion in the hand in the way practiced today – the article goes in detail about the way communion was practised in the first centuries, and makes clear that the former, infinitely more reverent practice had been completely and, crucially, un-controversially abandoned by the V century – comes from the Calvinists. And even in this case not from the original ones, but from Dutch Calvinists of the XVII century.
This means that even people who did not believe in the Real Presence managed to deal with the host in a more respectful way than the “Conciliar fathers” did once returned to their dioceses.
I do not know whether, when talking about the “Spirit of V II”, mockery or anger is more fitting; but I feel irresistibly attracted toward the second.
You may want to read here at Insight Scoop some interesting reflections about Pentecost. The links between the Old and New Testament are very neatly presented, as is the reference to the voice of God being, always in the Old Testament, associated with fire.
This could be the starting point of some short reflections about Pentecost. How many Catholics know what Pentecost is? Yes, the churchgoers are properly instructed in this matter and all of them would – I hope – answer without hesitation if asked. But we are talking of 20% of the Catholic population.
What do the others know about Pentecost? Have you tried a small mini-poll among your non-churchgoing friends? You might be surprised!
I hate quoting Martin Luther, but I must admit that the image of the good tree bearing good fruit is – if not abused theologically – a very powerful and efficacious one.
For one and a half generation we have been surrounded by clergy more worried with spreading social issues among the general public, than sound Catholicism. When the non-churchgoing Catholic hears about Catholicism, it will generally be on radio and tv, most often from non-Catholic sources. It would be, then, particularly important that the Catholic clergy tries to approach the mass media with the Catholic message, rather than doubling politicians’ issues.
If the press agencies were, on occasion of all important religious festivities, bombarded with press releases of bishops clearly centered on the religious feast at hand, no doubt some press agency would relaunch them and from there they would find echo in the mass media, even if only as an excuse for the wrong kind of debate. Similarly, if the bishops started making clear to the media outlets that they will only speak to them if the interview/program/initiative allows them to properly handle religious issues, there would certainly be those among the journalists ready to recognise a need among the public and deal with those issues. Little by little, the message would be out among non-churchgoers, and the general public would be regularly reminded of a world that is not dominated by social instances, but of something much more important: their own path to salvation.
We can clearly see from historical sources that exactly this used to be the case. The Church was very attentive to go to the media for the right reasons. Look at this and notice how the Church was clearly bent on reaching the faithful – and the non faithful – in their cinema seats, all over the country.
After Vatican II, this assertive communication of the Catholic message outside of the Church has been greatly lessened. Nowadays the Catholic clergy is too often Catholic from the pulpit, but they become only a pale, vaguely religious “social presence” when outside of the church, seemingly uninterested in promoting and spreading the Catholic message among non Catholics and non churchgoers. The priest as vehicle of Catholic values has become, once outside the church, the priest as the defender of social justice or, even, the environment.
Can we honestly say that the tree of Vatican II is bearing good fruit? Can we, comparing with two generations ago (many of us still vividly remember people born at the end of the last XIX century, and have through them a clear idea of how the world was organised then), honestly say that feasts like Pentecost are now better appreciated than this used to be the case? Can we say that there is not enough discussion about social justice so that we need our bishop to comment on the government’s policy? Can we say that there is enough discussion about Pentecost, and about salvation, so that there is no need for the clergy to talk to the public about them?
Without aggressive spreading of a Catholic message, Pentecost will be vastly ignored by the media and its message will therefore fail to reach – even if only as foot note, or as question mark – the great, non-churchgoing or non-Christian public.
The tree of Vatican II is giving no fruit.
Faithful to the motto oportet ut scandala eveniant, yours truly reports here an entry from Father Z’s blog informing us that the retired Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton has brilliantly discovered that 2000 years of Christian tradition and undisputed Church teaching about Male-only Priesthood are utterly and completely wrong. Caveat: this is not for the faint of heart.
It is also unclear whether Mr. Gumbleton is able to read, because if he were he would have stumbled across an Encyclical Letter called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (link is provided on the right column under “Church Teaching”). This Encyclical Letter was written for those less fortunate among us (the heretics, the extremely misinformed and the retards) who couldn’t accept the very clear evidence of Church teaching and was basically meant to tell them “just in case you were trying to deceive yourself into believing some sort of feminist nonsense, be informed that 1) you are not allowed to believe such nonsense and 2) you are not even allowed to discuss the matter”.
Bishop Gumbleton is very probably not a retard and being a Bishop one may safely suppose that he has received some sort of instruction. Therefore Bishop Gumbleton is a full-fledged heretic bent to cause maximum damage and confusion among Catholics because he is – albeit luckily already retired – a Bishop of the Only Church.
Besides praying for the conversion of Bishop Gumbleton and the other heretics, a useful thing you can do is to send your complaint to the Congregation for the Clergy at the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org . You may want to send a copy to the “Osservatore Romano”, email@example.com . If you prefer to write a letter, the address is: Congregazione per il Clero, Piazza Pio XII, 3, 00193 Roma, Italy. If I have got the wrong Congregation don’t worry, they’ll know where to forward.
Bishop Gumbleton should be either laicized or ordered to lock himself in a monastery for the rest of his days to clear his head and to expiate his sins. He needs our prayer but he needs to be severely and publicly punished, too. The times in which Bishops could confuse the minds of the simpler Catholics with their heresies and remain unpunished should now slowly but surely come to an end.
A Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is surely in order here.