It seems that certain flaming, off-the-hook liberals are beginning to see the reality of the present ecclesial crisis more clearly than even the most “traditional” of neo-conservatives.
For example, Michael Sean Winters, who whines and opines for National Catholic Reporter, recently wrote:
It is increasingly clear that the opposition to Francis comes not only from misconceptions about Vatican II but actual hostility to the council and to all the popes since.
As I’ve stated many times, Francis is a problem, but he isn’t the problem; a distinction that belongs primarily to the Second Vatican Council (to say nothing of the bastard rite that it inspired).
Winters, of course, is vehemently opposed to the mere suggestion that Vatican II is a problem – a “misconception” as he would have it – but at least he’s been able to connect the dots.
As for the most talked about neo-conservatives in recent weeks, Phil Lawler and Bishop Athanasius Schneider?
Not so much.
As most readers know, Mr. Lawler has authored a soon-to-be released book about Francis entitled Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock.
The inimitable Maike Hickson (whose dear husband Robert, a stalwart defender of Catholic tradition, is still in need of our prayers and sacrifices, as is her entire family) has provided a review of Lawler’s work that includes a number of noteworthy quotes.
For example, Lawler states of his evolution from Bergoglian defender to critic:
I found I could no longer pretend that Francis was merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No, it was more than that. He was engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.
He continued:
Francis has reopened the debate about the continuity of Catholic teaching. His supporters see him as the liberator of the spirit of Vatican II, bringing permanent change to the Church, while his critics protest that the Church cannot alter its fundamental doctrine.
It truly is an amazing thing to witness an otherwise intelligent man tiptoeing around a reality that is staring him squarely in the face.
If Lawler truly wishes to see what “a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches” looks like, he need look no further than the Almighty Council – the same that sparked the “debate about the continuity of Catholic teaching” that has been raging ever since.
Properly speaking, Francis hasn’t “reopened” anything; he’s simply pouring salt into a wound in the Body of Christ that has been festering for more than fifty years.
Lawler even goes so far as to count himself among those who are horrified at “the prospect of irreversible change” such as the sort pressed forward by Francis.
And yet, for whatever reason (diabolical disorientation, perhaps), he simply cannot – at least at the present moment – bring himself to acknowledge the direct role played by Vatican Council II in the horrors of the present day.
Neither can Bishop Schneider, whose recent and much ballyhooed “Profession,” in addition to citing Vatican II as if it is a remedy to the present crisis, does not even dare to directly criticize Amoris Laetitia!
On this note, readers may recall the “prediction” I made last week, which, to be honest, was about as bold as predicting that the sun will rise in the morning:
Be on the lookout for another one of those whiny Remnant videos with Michael Matt lecturing us on how deserving of esteem the Kazakhstani bishops are in spite of their failure to address the actual problem.
A kind reader has alerted me to the fact that it’s actually a bit worse than I had imagined:
Our hero, Bishop Athanasius Schneider?
How exactly does making a “hero” of a devoted man-of-the-council amount to “standing with 2,000 years of infallible teaching;” e.g., extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Catholic doctrine concerning the Social Kingship of Christ, the true nature of the Holy Catholic Church as the Church of Christ, etc.? (No need to answer.)
I trust this effectively puts to rest any lingering doubts one may have had concerning the “trad-con” phenomenon about which Cornelia Ferreira warned readers many month ago.
As Maike Hickson rightly pointed out in her review of Phil Lawler’s book:
Such a perspective [as Lawler’s] should stand as a counter-argument against those who claim that resistance to the “reforms” of Pope Francis is mainly “Lefebvrist” or “traditionalist” in origin.
Indeed, such claims give men like Phil Lawler and Bishop Schneider way too much credit; after all, even the scribes at National Catholic Reporter are able to see and acknowledge what they cannot.
This is sadly typical of cuckservatives and their CatholiCuck brethren. As a species of cuckservative, CatholiCucks are always sliding left. But as unconscious liberals they’re always 10-50 years behind both avowed liberals and disguised liberals (neocons).
Essential related essay:
Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo in the Conservative Movement’s Nest, by Alexander Hart
The cuckservative impulse is to dutifully and reflexively cry RAAACIST or ANTI-SEMITIC whenever confronted by material like Hart’s essay, and especially with material like Jared Taylor’s priceless “An Open Letter to Cuckservatives” essay linked within Hart’s essay. Resist this impulse, any of you tainted by cuckservatism and its pathologically altruisitic, suicidal xenophilia.
We would not have been subjected to a Vatican 2 had there not been problems in the Church prior to it. In fact , I recall locking horns with Mr Hickson myself at a private dinner hosted for me by a dear priest friend to which Bob Hickson was invited.
I have often repeated the same to my friend Randy and recently she gave an interview on a Traditional internet radio show in which she explains just that.
Homosexuals had infiltrated the Church long before Dodd planted the communist agent disordered men in the seminaries. Indeed they were coming in at the end of the nineteenth century in numbers akin to their kind surfacing in droves in
secular society . Until Church Leaders sweep them out with fervor for the Word of God and His Commandments , we can only expect more of the same. Our Holy Mother warned us at LaSalette.
There can be absolutely no real change in the institution of the Catholic Church until morality and purity are taken seriously by it’s leadership. In other words, THEY MUST TAKE A STAND IN JUDGEMENT FOR CHRISTIAN TRUTH.
The majority of today’s canon lawyers & theologians (clerical & lay) are protecting their backs. Christ does not come before their careers – their lack of trust in Him is clearly visible. Schism & excommunication are whispered in the dark corridors of the Vatican against those who, through concern, request them to answer five Dubia, or point out that the Word of God cannot be changed, ignored, or re-written. They take us, the laity, for fools who will cower at the threat of excommunication if we refuse to adhere to fallible & heretical papal exhortations, blasphemous meddling with the Gospels, Ten Commandments, Sacraments & Holy Liturgy or dare to admonish their satanic way of life & obsession with climate change & depopulation programmes (financed by NWO Soros & Co.) designed to bring totalitarianism to the Christian world.
The CC is in tatters yet no-one in authority will publicly declare it so. Venerable Fulton Sheen warned us not to rely on our clerics to save the Church but for the people themselves to see that their priests act like priests, bishops like bishops & religious like religious (& presumably popes likes popes). He also stated that – “The world is rapidly being divided into two camps, the comradeship of anti-Christ & the brotherhood of Christ. The lines between these two are being drawn. How long the battle will be we know not, whether swords will have to be unleashed we know not, whether it will be an armed conflict we know not. But in a conflict between truth & darkness, truth cannot lose.”
Never before was it so necessary to put our trust in Him who promised that He would be with us until the end of time & that the gates of hell will not prevail. Our task is to demand the consecration of Russia & the full disclosure of the Third Secret. Until this is done according to the directions of Our Blessed Mother nothing is going to change. The only ones who can make this possible are the silent Cardinals & Bishops – the breakthrough must come from within & we must keep the pressure on them until it does.
Well Ana I would love to ask fr sheen just how the laity is supposed to accomplish this task.
I wrote to a bishop to complain about our pastor denying the Real Presence. not one of the other pew cowards backed me up. one said he had his hearing aid off during the homily and the others pretended they did not hear it loud and clear. The Bishop came to our little Mission church and told me off from the pulpit. Long time “friends” walked by me and snorted on their way back from Communion.
One year later i attended the main parish church and several former parishioners ran out after mass to tell me I was right.
What I did not know was that parishioners from the main parish wrote also to the bishop because said non believing priest stole ALL the Church accounts, never paid the utilities, cleaned out the former gay pastor’s expensive furniture from the rectory ( purchased with parish funds) and came to their parish dinners dressed as a woman !!
They introduced me to their accountant and she confirmed everything adding that lay people had to pay the utility bills because they would no longer accept church checks. my question…”Why did you not file a police report because these were clearly felonies?”
ans: “Because he is a prieeeeest ! ”
Go ahead and write to the Papal Nuncio……..he just sends your valid concerns back to the BISHOP!!
Our Bishop knew all their complaints and mine but still came to tell me off. Then he sold our parish mission church. So please ArchBishop Sheen ,church militant know it alls and Fr Hardon (RIP) because I respectfully confronted him on another matter where he advised “building bridges to our bishops” in ’94
I reminded him we did that with pro life matters and sex ed in the parochial schools and GOT NOWHERE………..Fr Hardon just turned red and looked down at the table while Catholic mothers from all over the country who were present at the meeting walked over to me and congratulated me for correcting him.
So if I EVER hear that age old whine how the laity need to demand something better from our priests and Bishops because ” the laity will change the Church”
I say BS , It can ONLY be done by with holding donations !
$$$$$$$$$$ IS ALL they will act on or for , EVER !
We are NOT called to be Bridge Builders , we are Faithful Catholics who have been dumped on.
It’s too bad Archbishop Sheen was also a man of the Council.
For crying out loud the ‘bread and butter’ of the Conciliar Church is “irreversible change”. Its entire foundational ethos is the philosophy of “aggiornamento” which is really “the Church must get with the times”. That was the purpose of “updating” everything.
An aggiornamento example of ireeversible ‘reductio ad absurdum’:
Before we get female priests we will have to have female deacons, Before we get female deacons we will have to have female altar boys. Before we get female altar boys we will need female eucharistic ministers. Before we get female eucharistic ministers we will need female lectors…..
Aggiornamento is like the Terminator.
To borrow from the movie: “Listen, and understand! Aggiornamento is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you’re no longer Catholic!”
Makes sense Sweep as modernism also hit a sudden spike around that time.
Yes, incremental change has been the method of traitorous Vatican II scum. With Bergoglio, it seems they’ve moved beyond incremental change and are now going for broke, sensing that enough useful idiot CatholiCucks–of both the avowedly liberal and the cuckservative variety–will now go along with everything they do. Avowedly liberal cucks will go along with it in the name of progress, because IT’S THE CURRENT YEAR. Cucks of the “conservative” variety will continue to go along with it in the name of obedience. Either way, the devil treasures today’s legions of useful idiots.
The proof is in the pudding and the recipe for disaster came from the immoral .
When they refused to sweep out the filth every kind of vice was added to the mix.
Prayer ( especially the rosary) Fasting and with holding all funds is the only cure.
When it all crumbles it should be rebuilt with and by the power of the Holy Ghost.
This is pretty persuasive evidence for anyone who still has doubts.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/more-proof-that-francis-pontificate-has-been-hijacked-by-the-gay-lobby
I believe you have just nailed it to the wall with your 2 posts. Allow me to sum it up in a way even the deaf & dumb will understand……
IT’S THE SODOMITES, STUPID!!!!
Jacobum , read the comments to the link I posted above.
People are finally getting it. They realize it is pathetic to even say Borgoglio and the Papacy was hijacked after the evidence put forth. Worst case is he is one of them and a communist . Best case (if you can call it that) he is just a communist.
Full disclosure of the Third Secret. We need Our Lady’s words confirming it’s probable contents;
In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.
Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist. There will come an evil Council, do not change the Mass in the Liturgy. Many Cardinals, many Bishops and many Priests will be on the road to Hell and will take many souls with them. The last Pope and one third of the Hierarchy will be under the control of Satan. Rome will be destroyed. In the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me and the world will have a period of peace.
If the CEO of a large successful manufacturing company decided to replace their unsurpassed superior product with a cheap inferior imitation, it would only be a matter of time before the once prosperous company would go belly up. The stockholders and employees would be enraged and the CEO would be booted out the door. Perhaps the Catholic Church should learn a lesson from this.
I think the bigger issue is that these men are NOT CATHOLIC. Being homosexual does not preclude one from being Catholic. That’s why I don’t like the articles that focus on the “Gay Lobby”. It avoids the real issue here.
If your are a heretic, you are not Catholic, which is why some people are dubbing the defense of the morally disordered a “homoheresy”.
Actually , any sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance that is being presented as justified as a “non sin” places one in the heretical camp.
This is what Borgoglio’s papacy is all about. He is the Justifier of sin.
Abortion, Contraception, Adultery, Fornication,Sodomy are all okay even if one does not repent. Therein rests the Heresy.
Recall he wants us to apologize to homosexuals ?
I NEVER “marginalized” anyone for being a homosexual or of another religion. But I have sat down with them in friendship and explained what Jesus and His Apostles taught and the practical implications of going against the natural order of God.
Boroglio assumes we are all cretins. His very premise is disordered.
I agree with you. I just don’t think that most that speak of a “gay lobby” go as far as calling a spade a spade. They consider it mainly a group of evil men rather than a group of heretics. They also tend to think that they are the only problem. In other words, if we were to get rid of them, then everything would be honky dory. No, the main issue is the new doctrine that contradicts the Catholic Faith, not the group of evil, homosexuals in the Vatican.
2Vermont-If we get rid of the gay lobby and the heretics remain, all will be honky dory? If we get rid of the heretics, and the gay lobby remains, all will be honky dory? I think I’m misunderstand you because I usually agree with your comments. Thank for clarification.
Yes, you did misinterpret….I was saying what others say 🙂 I think if you re-read my post it will look different.
2Cents, 2Vermont…………..I rest my case .
It is the worst case scenario mentioned above. A friend sent me this.
https://gloria.tv/article/uRmM81iwPgyz4ewiqyAo74iKW
“Rodolfo Fiesoli, 76, the founder of Il Forteto in Vicchio, Italy, an acclaimed community for the reintegration of young offenders, was arrested on December 23 after his 14-years-sentence for the homosexual abuse of minors was definitively confirmed.
Fiesoli wanted to reproduce the educational experience of Father Lorenzo Milani, a left-wing homosexual with paedophile fantasies whose tomb Pope Francis recently visited by private helicopter.
“Fiesoli was a member of the Don Lorenzo Milani Foundation. Il Forteto had the enthusiastic support of the liberal Church circles which now form a phalanx around Pope Francis. According to the judges, the homosexual abuse in the left-wing community was “systematic”. ”
Google :Don Lorenzo Milani …….and read about the sexual ethos of the “Greek school” he employed ,wherein he believed homosexual relationships formed close friendships.
The Vatican II mindset goes back even further.
So long as Popes, Bishops, Clergymen and rank-and-file Catholics, and yes, even those who declare themselves ‘sedevacantists’ on this very blog, light incense to the two prime idols of modernism – Copernicus and Darwin – there will be no resolution. But for the Sedes to do so, requires them to completely rethink the basis of their personal erroneous sede theory which will find us without a Pope stretching as far back as the 1800s.
We’ve been reminded of this recently with a New Zealand Bishop saying that the Church attitude against homosexuality faces a “Galileo moment.”
———
Bishop Lowe said he thinks young people are leading the way in terms of relating with the LGBT community.
“I think young people are prophets of the Church. They always have something to say to the Church. And that’s what has come up. Young people want the Church to be more engaging with them (LGBT people),” he said.
He said the issue of homosexuality may be a “Galileo moment” for the Church.
He continued:
“The psychology is still up for debate but the Church has got to engage with the science and engage with the experience of couples with same-sex attraction.”
————
But we’ve been here before…
“The church must get used to the doctrine of blood and race [eugenics]. Just as the Catholic Church could not change the fact that the earth goes round the sun, so the church could not do away with the irrefutable facts which are given in blood and race. Unless they realize that, developments will simply pass them by.”
– Adolf Hitler, (Klaus Scholder, A Requiem for Hitler, (c) 1989 Trinity Press International)
————
Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged all this as the impetus for Vatican II. Because if the 1600-1700 Papacies and holy Inquisition were wrong, then Trent and the Fathers were wrong, and Vatican II was necessary, even though ironically, neither VII nor John Paul II fulfilled the intention of correcting the charges of FORMAL HERESY levelled against Galileo’s propositions, VII going silent, while John Paul II escaped through the ‘Relativity’ hatch to proclaim the Church was “sorry” was how it handled the issue, but that Science in the 1900s still could not prove heliocentrism to be factually correct.
————-
On a trip to Scotland a few years ago, Pope Benedict XVI was confronted by a mural on a city wall depicting a woman dressed as a priest and flanked on either side by Galileo and Copernicus with the word “oops!” at the bottom of each picture. The message was clear: as the Church is presumed to have made a mistake in condemning heliocentrism, she is also presumed to have made a mistake in barring women from the priesthood. In fact, everything from homosexuality, divorce, remarriage, contraception, abortion, genetic engineering to cloning, the Catholic Church has been relentlessly stigmatized as a primitive and out-of-touch institution in the modern age, beginning with her mistake concerning Galileo, which she now carries over into every other area of life. The complaint is often heard: ‘How can the Catholic Church claim to be infallible when, in fact, she put the weight of the magisterium behind her traditional interpretation of Scripture in order to condemn Galileo and his heliocentric system, yet we now know she was totally wrong?’
This seems to be a legitimate question. If the Catholic Church was wrong about what she not only claimed to be right, but also claimed that she had sole authority to judge the matter, how could we ever trust her to handle even more complex issues?
Of course, it doesn’t help the Church to dispel these secular taunts when its own vicar of Christ reveals that one of the main reasons for the initiation of Vatican Council II was because of “the error of the Church in the case of Galileo Galilei,” which “error” then led Vatican II’s prelates to believe they needed to “correct this wrong beginning and find the union between the Church and the best forces in the world in order to open up the future of humanity, to open true progress.” The context of Pope Benedict’s words are as follows:
“So we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. There was an incredible anticipation. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost would truly come, a new era of the Church – because at that time, the Church was still strong enough: Sunday practice still good, the vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already a bit reduced but still sufficient. Nonetheless, we felt that the Church was not advancing, it was diminishing, and it seemed rather a reality of the past and not the bringer of the future. And in that moment, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, that it would change; that the Church would once again be a force of tomorrow and a force of today.
And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was a bit in conflict, beginning with the error of the Church in the case of Galileo Galilei; we thought we could correct this wrong beginning and find the union between the Church and the best forces in the world in order to open up the future of humanity, to open true progress. So we were full of hope, of enthusiasm, and of the will to do our part for this thing.”
…
Whatever the implications of these current events, the most important thing to realize is that we now we have it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, that Vatican II was implemented for the express purpose of correcting the so-called “errors” of the traditional Church, and the first and foremost “error”—the only error that receives mention—was the Church’s decision against Galileo. Since Father Joseph Ratzinger was at the Council in 1962 and personally knew many of its major participants, his inside knowledge of what we can now call the “Galileo mentality” of Vatican II, must be taken as a reliable testimony. Due to his testimony, it may be safe to conclude that if the Church of 1962 had not concluded that the Church of 1616 made an “error” in the Galileo case, Vatican Council II may never have happened. In the end, either the 1616 Church was in error or the reason for initiating Vatican II was in error.
But perhaps there is a different light in which we can view the Pope’s words concerning Galileo. In 1990, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said these contrasting conclusions about the Galileo affair:
“Today, things have changed. According to Bloch, the heliocentric system—just like the geocentric—is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: “From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”
We might also add this statement he made, quoting Feyerabend, in the same speech:
“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.”
Perhaps, then, we should be more open to the idea that the Cardinal’s views of cosmology, particularly the geocentric universe, changed from negative in 1962 (the opening of Vatican Council II) to more positive in 1990. If true, then it also means his 2013 recounting of the pro-Galileo mentality of 1962 is not for the purpose of siding with it but of indicating to us that the Vatican II prelature made hasty and unwarranted presumptions about the past, many of which led to the spiritual disaster the Church experienced soon after Vatican II’s doors were closed in 1965 when the numbers of churches, priests, seminarians, nuns and Catholic
schools began to decline very rapidly and social upheaval in the Church and the world was unprecedented. We can only conclude that the very Council called in 1962 to correct the “errors” of the past was itself in error for accusing the past. Obviously, there is no way out of such a negative scenario for Vatican II’s prelature,
since if they reserve the right to put the Church of the past in error then there is nothing to make themselves immune from a similar or even bigger error. As the old saying goes, ‘what goes around comes around,’ or, better, ‘what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’
The sad fact is, the Galileo-incited “Church of the past was in error” mentality of Vatican II’s prelature eventually forced them to question many other beliefs and practices of the Church’s past; and this ecclesiastical introspection led them to the presumptuous conclusion that, in addition to the Galileo case, many other past
decisions were “in error” as well. As I’ve been saying for many years now, the Galileo case is the crux of the matter. It is the watershed for all the problems the Church is having now, and it will not go away until it is fixed. Vatican II’s pro-Galileo mentality led to a complete revamping of how the Catholic Church
understood herself and her scriptural foundation, which began in the mid-1800s right after Gregory XVI had taken Galileo’s book off the Index in 1835. The new view of Church and Scripture was officially endorsed in Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and ended with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 11 which, as the
modern prelature desired to understand it, taught the unprecedented idea that Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks on things concerning salvation, not history or science.
Consequently, because of the “Galileo mentality,” it is safe to say that the presumed “error” of the 1616 Church caused the whole tidal wave of historical criticism of the Bible that became prevalent first in the Protestant churches and eventually seeped into the Catholic Church with great force. Along with those new “critical” interpretations of Scripture came a whole new set of mores and practices (including sex, sexual roles, marriage, reproduction, other religions, miracles, politics, etc.). Just about any traditional belief or practice could be brought into question based on the idea that past theologians simply misinterpreted the Bible and/or mistakenly
believed the Bible had the authority to determine an issue that was outside the strict bounds of salvation.”
-Pope Benedict XVI Says Vatican II Was Initiated Because of the “Error in the Case of Galileo” – By Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
————————————–
Even Liberals and anti-Catholics both in the past and now can see what conservative Catholics and Sedes cannot, or rather will not for fear of the implications, because it challenges long held prejudices and erroneously built apologetic approaches they’ve relied on. In this they are faced with an Abrahamic-moment, as to whether they’ll take their only son and slay him when God asks. I do not say this to be curt, but because it IS a very psychologically difficult step to take because it is just as much a test of faith for us all!
—————————————-
“Modern man’s skepticism in this respect has chilled his enthusiasm for politics and world-reform; more than that, it is the worst possible basis for a smooth flow of psychic energies into the outer world, just as doubt concerning the morality of a friend is bound to prejudice the relationship and hamper its development. Through his skepticism modern man is thrown back on himself; his energies flow towards their source, and the collision washes to the surface those psychic contents which are at all times there, but lie hidden in the silt so long as the stream flows smoothly in its course.
How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the centre of the universe, circled by a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence. Such a life no longer seems real to us, even in our dreams. Science has long ago torn this lovely veil to shreds. That age lies as far behind as childhood, when one’s own father was unquestionably the handsomest and strongest man on earth.
Modern man has lost all the metaphysical certainties of his medieval brother, and set up in their place the ideals of material security, general welfare and humanitarianism.”
– Carl Jung, The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man
————-
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!”
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”
– The Parable of the Madman, The Gay Science ( aka Joyous Wisdom) – Friedrich Nietzsche
As for evolution, may I turn everyone towards Hugh Owen’s recent article for 1P5 –
Evolved from a Can of Worms: Evolution and the Culture of Death
https://onepeterfive.com/evolution-culture-of-death/
Good to keep in mind as Francis is busy handing out honors and medals to pro-abortion scum.
Were we speaking about evolution? Copernicus and Darwin?
I must have missed the sharp turn.
“Asmodeus and the like”, is what Our Lady first warned us about and then she named it’s promoter, Satanic Marxist Communism which brings with it pedophilia and bisexuality which was and is rampant in it’s high ranking Party members.
They believe in it totally and have spread it to formerly Christian nations including the Vatican.
Thank you, Johnno!
You have helped me understand and honor God’s scriptural account of creation.
My question is this, do not the flat earth traditionalists make a similar or same claim? Namely, that belief in FE is based on scripture and therefore de fide? Are they on track?
Thank you, 2Vermont. Is there a special font for “tongue in cheek” or sarcasm. Maybe someone could invent one. I appreciate your response.
Sweep (or anyone else who would like to answer)–I’m wondering if there are any studies to determine if young boys who have been sexually abused by men, grow up to be homosexual, bisexual and pedophiles. Is this perversion perpetuating itself? Is this why Our Lord said it would be better if a “millstone is hung around their necks….”? How deep is the scandal in the “church”? No amount of dubias and/or corrections will rid the Modernist “church” of this plague. The “good” bishops are putting bandaids on paper cuts, while the rest of the church is hemorrhaging. And we’re supposed to get excited every time they open their mouths.
my2cents: Studies show that children sexually abused by adults often go on to be peadophiles themselves. With homosexuals and bisexuals there doesn’t need to be any history of sexual abuse. I take it you are referring here to active homosexuals? We need to be careful to differentiate from those faithful Catholics struggling with some degree of same-sex attraction who nevertheless live the Church’s teaching. Especially with young people who need to be encouraged to access the Sacraments for the Grace of purity and not feel that their struggles are in vain.
St. Bernard–Thank you for your response. Men (and women) who have same-sex attraction are not sinful if they do not act on this tendency. IMH, they are suffering souls who need our prayers and compassion just the way anyone who is fighting to save their souls under difficult circumstances. The same situation applies to priests who have seriously taken the vow of celibacy and, yet, must live in a world obsessed with every kind of temptation. As you say, Sanctifying Grace is the best defense for all who want to be saved. That is why it is tragic when innocent souls are put on the path which may lead to a life of sin or struggle against sin—esp. by a priest. Thank you, St. Bernard.
my2cents: you are welcome. We are in such confusion now and the excellent research by for example Randy Engalls helps to clarify what has happened in the Church over a long period of time. We need, and young people especially need to be aware of the situation. But in the midst of this, I believe preternatural invasion of the Church there is still as you say Sanctifying Grace. God bless you.
In making daily comments on Crisis Magazine and The Catholic Thing blogs I use every opportunity to direct relate Pope Francis to the catastrophe of Vatican II. Francis is the apotheosis and personification of this council. Further I say that Vatican II was intended to Protestantize of Church which will eventually destroy it.
At the present time most Catholics are really Protestants in their actions and beliefs as see in the Pew poll surveys of religious belief.
In saying what I do most commenters react with name calling and unbelief. They also refuse to acknowledge the obvious facts.
Keep up your good work Louie.
2 Cents, Often the abused believe themselves to be homosexual (“‘or why else would the priest have been attracted to me? “) which is many time recounted in testimony. The first sexual encounter can also bring with it an initial encounter with a sexualized sensation confusing the adolescent recipient about the nature of love itself. Oft times the abused does not tell because he believed the priest loved him in this abusive vile act. Yes abuse does beget abuse if therapy and good counseling has not intervened .No one is born that way unless there has been an anomalous disruption in hormonal release within the first three months of gestation which is very rare.You will note in the Prologue to Mrs Engle’s RoS book the comment is made ,quoting a sodomite abuser to his victim ,”Now you are one of us.”
I also informed the author of the same after listening to an account of a friend of a relative who asked her brother, dying in an AIDS Hospice, when he knew he was a homosexual. “After Fr X sodomized me at 12 he said ,” Now you are one of us. ” Mrs Engel told me she has heard this many times from victims.
This psychological dynamic is well known within the homosexual collective and yes, it is a form of propagation. The nature of vice is to bring more members into the group , so as to create a sense of justification. Or better put,
if everyone is jumping off a bridge into hell would you do it too?
Sure , if everyone is doing it!
I strongly disagree with St Bernard below. It is a misnomer to say a homosexual is something completely different from a pedophile.
An adult male pedophile who sodomizes boys IS a homosexual.
It is also a far fetched notion to believe a man who struggles with ssa should ever be in an all male environment such as a seminary. We are to avoid the near occasion of sin and not to place ourselves in the way of strong temptation as Scripture advises .
“Francis is the apotheosis and personification of this council. Further I say that Vatican II was intended to Protestantize of Church which will eventually destroy it. In saying what I do most commenters react with name calling and unbelief. They also refuse to acknowledge the obvious facts.”
As time marches on, I give less and less benefit of the doubt to these folks (I used to). At this point, anyone who does not see this reality do not want to see it. In other words, they are willingly blind.
Correction , the comment referred to above as,”Now you are one of us.” is in the Preface and not the Prologue as I stated above in Mrs Rngel’s seminal work ,”The Rite of Sodomy”.
For further clarification I might add that an adult male pedophile who abuses a female child is a heterosexual , but also a pedophile nonetheless.
I didnt read the book you just posted, but I did have enough energy to see that you got your usual dig in at us sedes (as you threw it in as quickly as you were possibly able to). BTW, Im an actual real person who espouses the sedevacantist point of view (as do many people….and many more will when ratzinger drops dead before bergoglio), which means that sedevacantists actually exist. The quotation marks that you use around the word are not necessary.
The question is there any studies to show that boys abused by men grow up to be pedophiles, homosexual or bisexual;
My understanding of pedophile is an adult who targets pre-pubescent children. Homosexual men targeting teenage boys I would call pederasts and of course these boys will grow up to be either homosexual or bisexual.
However those people with same sex attraction are not necessarily victims of sexual abuse. They may never in fact have had any sexual experiences and I need to need to differentiate such people from the above.
Furthermore, continuing on the same topic I stated above………..
We will NEVER hear the entire Third Secret because as this Pope has demonstrated by his willingness to shelter those who practice unnatural vice and even promote them i.e. Paglia, all conversations on the wickedness of the designs of Vatican Two are mute……They all stem from the pits of hell and Our Lady’s statements at LaSalette .Fatima and Trefontaine all pointed to the same source.
NO the return of TLM will not save us !
She said repeatedly that more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh . She said the priesthood had become cesspools of impurity . She said we must pray the Rosary daily.
This Pope discourages rote “parrot like ” prayers. This Pope promotes and shelters the vilest public disordered clerics.
Pornography was the tool used by Satan and his minions to soften mankind up into accepting the vilest of unnatural acts as acceptable.
No one, absolutely no priest Bishop or Cardinal rails against this from the pulpit because the spotlight might shine back on them.
Now we are confused enough to believe Jesus Christ loved these vile unnatural sinners so much that HE never spoke out against their sins and we must not Judge them either!!!………….
Whoa……St John Chrysostom was asked by His flock what Jesus meant when He said to His Apostles that in the End Times it would worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
Ans: “Because even many of His Ministers would become impure and practice unnatural sexual vice.”
So, go ahead and argue the legalisms of the sede vs the true papal elections, go ahead and argue the modernism brought in by Vat 2 and the corruption wrought by the changes in the Mass. Go ahead and argue the merits and flaws of Darwin……
But people please recognize that it all stems from Satan who has seduced the world into forgetting what is and is not serious mortal sin.
Welcome to the End Times complete with Hell on earth and in eternity that Borgoglio would have us believe a good deed atheist will escape eternal damnation from.
Next up ?
Enter the good deed Antichrist !
Dear Sweep,
Do you mean “pederasty” rather than “pedophile”?
In some of the excellent interviews that you posted with the gifted Randy Engel, she makes a clear distinction between the two words, saying the the enemy has once again blurred the distinction with the words so to mask the homosexual agenda and involvement.
Thank you I stand corrected Servant,
I was attempting to convey the same thing.
Pederasty is the vile act committed against children and the lines blur when we think a “pedophile” only acts out on children or is always gender neutral .
Hat tip to Anne Barnhardt for referencing ‘aka catholic’.
Two tips for expounding on the gravity of the “sins of the flesh” ( which Our Lady referenced as at the root of our deserved chastisement) and what deep deep trouble we are all in as Catholics in this putrid culture that our clerics have failed to focus on at the pulpit.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/
She finishes with “Do you appreciate now how terrifyingly complete satan’s grip on the world is? Do you now see why it is that any clear-thinking person is terror-struck by the Fewness of the Saved? Do you now see what an unprecedentedly and unfathomably low point The Church is at when people like me have to explain these things? ”
I for one am terror struck and my terror increases with each day when I see what Borgoglio is or is not doing !
When the Catholic Church lost its moral compass, the world went crazy. Why did Our Lady give special warnings about the year 1960? The Second Vatican Council was a carefully planned blueprint for disaster. Bergoglio is not the cause of his horrendous crisis. He is the product of the machinery put in place by the enemies of Christ. Worst of all, those who we trusted to be Crusaders against this vile enemy have put down their armor and swords and have resorted to vague mumblings on how bad things are when they are complicit.
Dear St Bernard,
The situations you describe have now taken on an even more serious dynamic.
In the schools today exploration of gender bending is being encouraged all the way down to the elementary level.
A relative who is a teacher recently explained that in the middle school where she is employed it is not uncommon to see girls kissing and fondling each other in the hallways .she emphasized to me that the teachers are encouraging it several times explaining that girls who are not particularly attractive and do not garner much attention from the boys are falling into this trap as a means of gaining attention and feeling a sense of popularity. The same was told to me by the mother of a college student. The boy is diminutive in stature and came home announcing he was gay. He added ,”Everyone likes you if you are a homosexual”. You state,……….
“However those people with same sex attraction are not necessarily victims of sexual abuse. They may never in fact have had any sexual experiences and I need to need to differentiate such people from the above.”
Rather than defining one’s natural gender, this culture is deliberately causing confusion . ( i, e, confusion being a hallmark of satanic manipulation )
The example you cite above is minuscule because the lie is they are born that way.
We have no way of knowing if those now identifying as ssa individuals have been abused through educational and cultural mental brainwashing or physical abuse.
Sweep–I have heard this very same scenario from extremely reliable sources going back almost 10 years!! What you say is absolutely true! The “rainbow” curriculum in government run brainwashing institutions has been around for quite some time. How can we expect the Modernist “catholic” church to be outraged when the hierarchy is behaving the same ugly way?
Dearsweepoutfilth I don’t doubt that the examples you give are happening now. Any degree of innocence which our generation may have possessed has virtually disappeared, and I don’t think this is a rose coloured view of the past from an oldie! I am concerned that faithful Catholics with these temptations may look around at what’s happening and identify themselves with it. Hence my differentiation of people with ssa from those actively involved. I may have been viewing through the lens of 30/40 years past when such a distinction could be argued.
Thank you for your comments which serve to remind me of how much has changed and how quickly. I believe all that we are witnessing today is evidence of preternatural invasion of the World the Flesh and the Devil in the Church.
sweepoutthefilth: I would add as a qualifier to my statement, those with ssa who have no conscious memory of abuse. Traumatic memory, particularly in childhood can be suppressed, unprocessed by the young brain and resulting in psychological and even physical arrested development.
my2cents: I believe the answers to your questions lie in the Third Secret of Fatima. Although unpublished there are enough statements from those who were privileged to read it for men such as Fr Gruner to piece together it’s probable content. In this case Our Lady wanted the Secret published by 1960 because it foretells Apostasy in the Church coming from an “evil Council “. The Secret allegedly names each of the Popes from Pius XI and their guilt in failing to Consecrate Russia. There comes the terrifying sentence “the last pope will be under the control of Satan”
Our Lady warns that one third of the Hierarchy will be under the control of Satan; a third of the stars of heaven swept down to earth by the tail of the Dragon.
This is the situation we are now in and only the Consecration of Russia will get us out. Meanwhile we have the Rosary for “only She can help you”.