http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6222
There's people getting worked up that the classes they fucking chose - as in the classes for the major they chose are not pandering to their social justice status.
Why are people getting worked up over this? Like, why is this a thing? Why don't people realize that most major thinkers and sociologists and philosophers are white and male because fucking history was white and male for 2,000 YEARS! That's just how it is! You chose to be in this major and you chose to take the class, so you should know what you're getting into! Accept that the world is mostly white, male and non-transsexual in basically everything and move on - that is how the world works!
Have fun flipping burgers when you keep protesting the norm of society with a useless "queer studies" degree or something. Like that'll get you somewhere.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
The heresy and madness behind conclavism.
Conclavism.
From the word "conclave", as in papal conclave, the series of elections used to elect the new successor to St. Peter. It is a strange, baffling and not very interesting movement, partly due to the insanity behind its thinking. The idea behind conclavism is that since the current claimant to the throne of sainted Simon Peter is a heretic or otherwise ineligible to be a pope, they must elect their own pope. You can see how this runs into a litany of problems. You might get people who may be good Catholics, but with no valid Holy Orders, for example.
It is a movement born and nurtured in the despair-inebriated insanity that Traditional Catholicism sometimes is. I am a Traditional Catholic and I have love for the Church, and love for Our Lord and Our Lady. You must realize, however, that some people positing ideas that we haven't had a valid pope in 58 years - probably almost 2/3rds into the life of the average Western adult. Some of these people - we call them sedevacantists: from the term used during interregnum - the period of time with which there is no pope - sede vacante (empty chair) - are fine.
They are Catholics who do not believe that there is a valid pope. The past 4 popes post-Vatican II (Excluding John XXIII for being pre-VII and Angelo Luciani/John Paul I for not saying anything) have said some damning things which could lead one to think that. It has led to some infighting among groups and various trains of thought sliding on an icy patch of doubt every which way. There is a sedevacantist out of New Mexico infamously known as Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi who doesn't believe Innocent III or later were valid popes. This makes me question how he attends Holy Mass (Quo Primum, the document that codified the use of the Traditional Latin Mass in its current, immutable form, was written by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, about 300 years past his cut-off date.)
Conclavists take it to a new level. This movement is founded by the despair-inebriated mental instability that some people have, and I don't think I'll ever understand it. I'll pray they renounce their papal claims. There are sedevacantists, and then people that delve into New Catholicism, a mutated faith. They hate the Novus Ordo, but they're becoming like them by developing new ideas and poisoning the true faith.
From the word "conclave", as in papal conclave, the series of elections used to elect the new successor to St. Peter. It is a strange, baffling and not very interesting movement, partly due to the insanity behind its thinking. The idea behind conclavism is that since the current claimant to the throne of sainted Simon Peter is a heretic or otherwise ineligible to be a pope, they must elect their own pope. You can see how this runs into a litany of problems. You might get people who may be good Catholics, but with no valid Holy Orders, for example.
It is a movement born and nurtured in the despair-inebriated insanity that Traditional Catholicism sometimes is. I am a Traditional Catholic and I have love for the Church, and love for Our Lord and Our Lady. You must realize, however, that some people positing ideas that we haven't had a valid pope in 58 years - probably almost 2/3rds into the life of the average Western adult. Some of these people - we call them sedevacantists: from the term used during interregnum - the period of time with which there is no pope - sede vacante (empty chair) - are fine.
They are Catholics who do not believe that there is a valid pope. The past 4 popes post-Vatican II (Excluding John XXIII for being pre-VII and Angelo Luciani/John Paul I for not saying anything) have said some damning things which could lead one to think that. It has led to some infighting among groups and various trains of thought sliding on an icy patch of doubt every which way. There is a sedevacantist out of New Mexico infamously known as Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi who doesn't believe Innocent III or later were valid popes. This makes me question how he attends Holy Mass (Quo Primum, the document that codified the use of the Traditional Latin Mass in its current, immutable form, was written by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, about 300 years past his cut-off date.)
Conclavists take it to a new level. This movement is founded by the despair-inebriated mental instability that some people have, and I don't think I'll ever understand it. I'll pray they renounce their papal claims. There are sedevacantists, and then people that delve into New Catholicism, a mutated faith. They hate the Novus Ordo, but they're becoming like them by developing new ideas and poisoning the true faith.
Monday, December 29, 2014
For God gave them up to a reprobate mind...
Protestants.
A Protestant Episcopal female "bishop" was found to have been a drunkard after hitting and killing a man in Maryland. My comments in red.
[God will abandon those who delve into insanity, such as this dyke that abandoned the True Faith for a den of thieves. She is not a bishop, not a priest, but someone in open rebellion against God. The laity are innocent, but I believe that being a bishop of a heretical sect is worse than a sodomite.]
[You drunkard. You idiot. You are a murderer who must be thrown in jail. In no way are you fit for the ministry.]
A Protestant Episcopal female "bishop" was found to have been a drunkard after hitting and killing a man in Maryland. My comments in red.
"An Episcopal bishop who was the driver in a hit-and-run crash that killed a bicyclist in Baltimore was charged four years ago with drunken driving and marijuana possession, court documents show.
[Drunkards and other morally inept people do not have a place in leadership.]"Bishop" Suffragan Heather Cook, who is the No. 2 leader for the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, was driving a car that hit Tom Palermo, 41, on a sunny Saturday afternoon, diocese spokeswoman Sharon Tillman said.
[God will abandon those who delve into insanity, such as this dyke that abandoned the True Faith for a den of thieves. She is not a bishop, not a priest, but someone in open rebellion against God. The laity are innocent, but I believe that being a bishop of a heretical sect is worse than a sodomite.]
Palermo died from head injuries, said Bruce Goldfarb, spokesman for the Maryland medical examiner's office.
Court records show that a sheriff's deputy stopped Cook on Sept. 10, 2010, in Caroline County on the Eastern Shore. The officer wrote in a report that Cook was driving on the shoulder at 29 mph in a 50 mph-zone with a shredded front tire. The deputy noted that a strong alcohol odor emanated from the vehicle and that Cook had vomit down the front of her shirt.
The officer wrote that Cook was so intoxicated that she couldn't finish a field sobriety test because she might fall and hurt herself.
[You drunkard. You idiot. You are a murderer who must be thrown in jail. In no way are you fit for the ministry.]
According to the report, Cook registered .27 percent blood alcohol content. The legal limit in Maryland is .08 percent.
The officer found two small bags of marijuana in the vehicle, along with paraphernalia, and a bottle of wine and a bottle of liquor.
Cook pleaded guilty to drunken driving, and the prosecution of marijuana possession charges was dropped. A judge sentenced her to a fine and probation before judgment on the DUI charge, meaning her record could be cleared if she stayed out of trouble.
Tillman said Cook disclosed the earlier charges when she was vetted and ultimately elected as the diocese's first female bishop.
[The religion that elected a faggot to lead their country elects a drunkard and now murderer. May the Lord have his vengeance. It is deserved for abandoning God. Pray for Palermo's family. He may have been a Catholic and the one to go to his Eternal Reward.]
THe reew gallery
[
Sunday, December 21, 2014
I think John Paul I is a true pope.
I'm a sedevacantist. That's the best way I can put it.
A sedevacantist doesn't believe that there's been a valid, legitimate, Catholic pope since the death of Pius XII because of many things, usually that the Pope is a heretic and heretics are not Catholics, ergo Pope Willy-Wonka XXIX is not the pope.
There's been some antipopes in the Vatican II religion, also known as the Novus Ordo. These people just, as the Novus Ordo does, make me really damn sad. I wish I could go to a valid, Catholic Mass anywhere in the world without worrying that there's rampant heresy in every service. But I digress.
I don't know about the number of the Novus Ordo antipopes, but there's two I have some doubt with. And then, I will get to my main point.
John XXIII - OK. Yes, he instituted the 1962 missal that put St. Joseph in the Canon and did some stuff. He died before anything really happened in Vatican II. Fuck Paul VI, by the way. He might be worse than Luther in the damage he did to the Church by installing the Novus Ordo and driving Catholics out of the faith. It's not the faggot pederasty that bankrupted dioceses, it's not the liturgical dancing, it's Montini the fucking Roman Methodist who decided going after the supper table of Protestant Europe was a good idea, suppressing Catholicism in the process.
John Paul I. He was ordained a bishop in 1958. Despite his status as a pope of the Novus Ordo era, I have reason to suspect he was a true pope. It is this simple reasoning:
He was pope for a month and three days! Literally! He was elected in September 1978 and died October of that year.
He had no time at all to preach heresy in public. If we did, we don't know!
A sedevacantist doesn't believe that there's been a valid, legitimate, Catholic pope since the death of Pius XII because of many things, usually that the Pope is a heretic and heretics are not Catholics, ergo Pope Willy-Wonka XXIX is not the pope.
There's been some antipopes in the Vatican II religion, also known as the Novus Ordo. These people just, as the Novus Ordo does, make me really damn sad. I wish I could go to a valid, Catholic Mass anywhere in the world without worrying that there's rampant heresy in every service. But I digress.
I don't know about the number of the Novus Ordo antipopes, but there's two I have some doubt with. And then, I will get to my main point.
John XXIII - OK. Yes, he instituted the 1962 missal that put St. Joseph in the Canon and did some stuff. He died before anything really happened in Vatican II. Fuck Paul VI, by the way. He might be worse than Luther in the damage he did to the Church by installing the Novus Ordo and driving Catholics out of the faith. It's not the faggot pederasty that bankrupted dioceses, it's not the liturgical dancing, it's Montini the fucking Roman Methodist who decided going after the supper table of Protestant Europe was a good idea, suppressing Catholicism in the process.
John Paul I. He was ordained a bishop in 1958. Despite his status as a pope of the Novus Ordo era, I have reason to suspect he was a true pope. It is this simple reasoning:
He was pope for a month and three days! Literally! He was elected in September 1978 and died October of that year.
He had no time at all to preach heresy in public. If we did, we don't know!
Friday, November 28, 2014
"Prince of the Church" denies the Divinity of Our Lord... the fruits of Vatican II.
"The new archbishop of Salzburg, the Franciscan Franz Lackner, reigning since January 12, 2014, said, "The Future of the Church" will include fewer priests, but that "the laity can take on important and responsible positions in the Church." These tasks should not belittle you, Lackner said. "We have forgotten that Jesus was a layman." -from the article.
This is a very disconcerting thing to read. Very disconcerting, because it effectively means that this bishop does not believe in the Divinity of Our Blessed Lord. How can he shepherd souls in the disaster of non-religion that is Austria when he too has joined the ranks of the infidels?
We as Catholics must posit another question: If a bishop denies that Christ was ever High Priest, where does he think his authority come from? Apostolic succession, that is, the authority of priests and bishops to preach the words of Christ came from that same Lord, our God! If he denies Christ as High Priest, he may be no more than a layman himself like the Protestants of neighboring Germany. The Lutherans of Germany may indeed have clergy that can trace who gave them liturgical faculties back to pre-Luther Catholic German times in the same way that a priest of the Society of St. Pius X will be able to trace his lineage back to the society's namesake.
The German Lutherans have no apostolic succession, though. What becomes of a bishop who denies his episcopal faculties, essentially?
This is a very disconcerting thing to read. Very disconcerting, because it effectively means that this bishop does not believe in the Divinity of Our Blessed Lord. How can he shepherd souls in the disaster of non-religion that is Austria when he too has joined the ranks of the infidels?
We as Catholics must posit another question: If a bishop denies that Christ was ever High Priest, where does he think his authority come from? Apostolic succession, that is, the authority of priests and bishops to preach the words of Christ came from that same Lord, our God! If he denies Christ as High Priest, he may be no more than a layman himself like the Protestants of neighboring Germany. The Lutherans of Germany may indeed have clergy that can trace who gave them liturgical faculties back to pre-Luther Catholic German times in the same way that a priest of the Society of St. Pius X will be able to trace his lineage back to the society's namesake.
The German Lutherans have no apostolic succession, though. What becomes of a bishop who denies his episcopal faculties, essentially?
Friday, August 29, 2014
There Is No Such Thing as Christianity
In the earthly life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, He started a Church and ministry. This would later, through the proselytizing of the Apostles, spread throughout the Middle East, Europe and eventually the world - adopting bishops, priests, a Mass and Saints. It has survived various heresy scandals throughout the years and has made itself known to all men. This is what is known as the Catholic Church.
In the last 500 years, we've had people not recognize that and create denominations - people splitting from the Catholic Church. That's a problem.
Not only is that heresy, but it's created false hope. It's created false hope that heresy and schism unites the people under the guise of Christianity.
I say there is no such thing as Christianity because there is no such thing as Christianity. "Christianity" is a mangled, sordid amalgamation of 33,000 different, (radically different if you count some others) beliefs and creeds and positions over a vast spectrum, many of them being unable to reconcile more than a critical belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and even then you will have some sects interpret THAT differently.
They disagree on everything - the Lord's Supper/Eucharist, how or if to give credence to the Mother of God as a sinner or someone without sin or what, how to interpret Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture and even the nature of baptism. Credobaptists, for example, baptize when the believer professes Christ as Lord. Paedobaptism professes this when the party is an infant.
That's just a smattering among thousands among THOUSANDS of differing beliefs and ways and ideas that have amalgamated into something convoluted. I say again, there is no such thing as Christianity. There IS a Christian faith if you so choose to identify yourself as that. That is to say, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc. are all part of the basic Christian fold - at least recognizing the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity in Three Persons as a key belief. Someone who is a Christian professes the basic Christian idea that Jesus is Lord.
But for now, identify with a denomination. Do not call yourself Christian.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
In the last 500 years, we've had people not recognize that and create denominations - people splitting from the Catholic Church. That's a problem.
Not only is that heresy, but it's created false hope. It's created false hope that heresy and schism unites the people under the guise of Christianity.
I say there is no such thing as Christianity because there is no such thing as Christianity. "Christianity" is a mangled, sordid amalgamation of 33,000 different, (radically different if you count some others) beliefs and creeds and positions over a vast spectrum, many of them being unable to reconcile more than a critical belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and even then you will have some sects interpret THAT differently.
They disagree on everything - the Lord's Supper/Eucharist, how or if to give credence to the Mother of God as a sinner or someone without sin or what, how to interpret Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture and even the nature of baptism. Credobaptists, for example, baptize when the believer professes Christ as Lord. Paedobaptism professes this when the party is an infant.
That's just a smattering among thousands among THOUSANDS of differing beliefs and ways and ideas that have amalgamated into something convoluted. I say again, there is no such thing as Christianity. There IS a Christian faith if you so choose to identify yourself as that. That is to say, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc. are all part of the basic Christian fold - at least recognizing the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity in Three Persons as a key belief. Someone who is a Christian professes the basic Christian idea that Jesus is Lord.
But for now, identify with a denomination. Do not call yourself Christian.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Shema Israel, You're the New Lovechild of American Politics.
When it comes to state elections, I vote Republican. Democrats are immoral and Minnesota's Independence Party is just a bunch of confused Democrats. Nationally, the one time I voted, I also voted Republican. I was a confused neo-conservative Evangelical Protestant in 2012.
Republicans are many things in opposition to Catholic morals, but one of them is Zionist.
Zionism is the political movement that stems from the idea that there should be a Jewish state in the world. More than likely, it stems from the persecution of Jews by Catholic leaders in Europe and the Jews' desire to have a land of their own. Christian kings and heads of state accused the Jews of the sin of deicide, therefore putting them in a level of servitude to Catholics. Their lands were taken away, they were exiled, etc.'
There is a problem with how modern Zionism conducts itself and conducted itself in the beginning. They came to Palestine as immigrants from Russia and Germany, setting up farms and colonies. This could've been fine had it been relegated to a small iota of land along the sea, like modern-day Gaza City. Enter the late 40s and the atrocities of World War II. The UN saw what happened in the Holocaust and decided to divide the Palestinian territories to give Jews the state of Israel in 1948.
It baffles me beyond all comprehension how a man who professes the Christian faith - that is, most of the Republican Party - could support Zionism.
Jews do not deserve the Holy Land.
I'll say it again. Jews do not deserve the Holy Land. Te lo voy a decir en español. Los judíos no merecen la Tierra Sagrada.
They are the nation that killed the Son of God and made a religion out of it. What if Mark David Chapman paraded around Manhattan establishing a cult around his murder of John Lennon?
Approving of Zionism is denying Christ, but today's GOP must do it to win the office. What a shame.
Gospodi, pomiluj.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)