Sunday, February 26, 2017

Old Poison, New Bottle



We have all been through this nightmare before.  It's just a little more blatant than it used to be.

Remember Humanae Vitae, the flawed but basically fine document issued by Pope Paul VI? There was open rebellion against it by numerous leading Bishops.  And not one of those Bishops was ever disciplined for this betrayal and treason.  Remembering that, is it really so hard to understand what is going on in the Church, now headed by a Pope far worse than Paul VI?

[The late Hamish Fraser always surmised that Humanae Vitae was released prior to the institution of the New Mass in order to build up papal sympathy before imposing the Novus Ordo thereby hoping to dodge some of the shock and criticism that he would come.  Is it possible that some new, benevolent gesture will be forthcoming to outraged Catholics, to solace them and let down their guard, for something more wicked that this way will come?]

Just a reminder that though their tactics have become more sophisticated and the traitors more arrogant the same script is usually followed.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Chaos and the Visible Church

From Brother Andre, MICM:


“The Church is now in a full-blown civil war over doctrine” screams the headline from the U.K. Catholic Herald. The body of doctrine being fought over is not limited to the hot-button issues surrounding Amoris Laetitia, either. Those issues certainly remain a casus belli — for Cardinal Coccopalmerio has just added his own contribution by way of a 51-page booklet published by the Vatican Press, the curious presser for whose publication was described as “Kafkaesque” by The Tablet’s Christopher Lamb. But in addition to the increasing scandal and division surrounding Amoris, the civil war mentioned by the Catholic Herald’s Dan Hitchens now includes a new front, one formerly thought to have been tightly secured: the male-only sacramental priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The recent promotion of women priests comes not from the National Catholic Reporter or some other organ of progressivist lay opinion, but from La Civiltà Cattolica, every page of which is vetted by the Vatican Secretariat of State. That once great publication has always been a Jesuit production, and it has changed over the years in sync with the evolution of the Society of Jesus, whose Father Antonio Spadaro is its current editor. La Civiltà’s Rev. Giancarlo Pani, S.J., authored the piece dismissing all tradition and the authoritative teaching of Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on Holy Orders. His reasoning? Not exactly rock solid theological criteria: the “developments that the presence of woman in the family and society has undergone in the 21st century.”
Besides La Civiltà Cattolica Jesuits — the Company traditionally conceived as the papal shock troops — the vanguard of the progressivist side in this civil war includes a group of cardinals who thought it good to issue a very unusual vote of confidence for the Roman Pontiff and his Magisterium.
On the other side is that dark and sinister character, the subject of recent conspiracy theories, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke. Mild mannered Midwestern churchman and canonist by day; by night, he turns malevolent co-conspirator with surly Steve Bannon and despotic Donald Trump, or so we are led to believe. It seems that the Washington Post’s Emma-Kate Symons thinks that Cardinal Burke is playing Saruman to Trump’s Sauron, with Bannon being a sort of orc go-between. (Weren’t traditionalists supposed to have a monopoly on nutty conspiracy theories?) This is truly rich fantasy writing worthy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, but its factual claims have been concisely debunked by Christian Browne, writing for OnePeterFive.

Read the whole article.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

St Therese of Lisieux in Russia

Septuagesima Sunday, 2017


The year was 1999, just after the Fall of the Communists.  Russia was still devastated by the sickness of atheism.  Boris Yeltsin was in power.  The Money Power was busy plundering Russia of its resources.  Despair was rife.

Then St Therese visited that unhappy land.


The Kremlin Guard  carries St Therese's relics.






































http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/143555/1746325/1216725933287/relicsinRussia.pdf?token=UOkmf%2BWTKfbFTIDirUYQh       jSklIE%3D

I have always been both charmed and deeply interested in this story mainly because of the timing of the events.  Yeltsin was so eager to play ball with the money changers that in his drunken delirium he turned over major Russian assets to them for pennies on the dollar.  Some of these characters became instant billionaires and with their cohorts accelerated the theft of Russian wealth and resources..

But St Therese is the Patron Saint of Suffering Russia, so designated by Pope Pius XI.  The visit of her relics in 1999 is more than remarkable if we consider that not long after she visited Russia Yeltsin was to relinquish his power to his designated successor, believing that his successor would continue to allow the stripping from Russia of anything of value and keep the Oligarchs happy.  In 2000 that successor was elected, and he moved quickly and unexpectedly to stop the rape of Russia. His name was Vladimir Putin.

Is there a connection between these two interesting events, the visit of St Therese, patron of suffering Russia, and the coming to power of Vladimir Putin?  I do not know, but I believe it to be an intriguing turn of events.

More here: http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/45356/Re:%20Devotion%20to%20Saint%20Therese%20 http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/45356/Re:%20Devotion%20to%20Saint%20Therese%20

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Shamir: Why Europe is to be Muslimized



This post is a bit of a cheat because it is the same one posted a few days ago.  The reason why I am doing this is because after re-reading Mr Shamir's excellent article it dawned upon me that he was writing not so much about Donald Trump as he was explaining why the Muslim "immigration" problem is metastasizing as it is.  Shamir explains this European invasion as a tactic to a greater end game, and he exposes the masterminds behind it.  That is the real story people need desperately to understand.  Hence, this re-boot of the article.

[Editor: Israel Shamir is a noted Jewish journalist who has converted to Orthodox Christianity]


"I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church."
President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.
He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.
Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.
This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.
One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.
Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.
Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.
Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.
Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.
Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.
Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.
Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.
While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.
Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.
The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.
Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Read the whole article

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Israel Shamir assesses Mr Trump

[Editor: Israel Shamir is a noted Jewish journalist who has converted to Orthodox Christianity]


"I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church."
President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.
He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.
Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.
This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.
One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.
Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.
Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.
Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.
Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.
Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.
Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.
Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.
While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.
Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.
The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.
Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Read the whole article
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...