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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)