jump to navigation

More Horrors for the Syrian Christians October 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Please pray for the Syrian Christians (and Iraqi, and Egyptian, and……), and help them if at all possible.  Some recent demonic atrocities from the “religion of peace,” via Vox:

The sick jihadis killed children, the eldest was just four years old, in an industrial dough kneader in the Syrian town of Duma.

In a chilling testimony, one Syrian woman spoke of “Christians being killed and tortured, and of children being beheaded in front of their parents.”

Speaking to Dr Yvette Isaac, from advocacy charity Roads to Success, Alice Assaf said: “Our neighbour came in and said: ‘Umm Issa, they have taken many girls about 300 girls. They were taken to Duma. Many of them were Christians and few were Alawites.

“At the bakery, there were six young people who were working there. We knew them. They were burned in the oven, six well-framed men.

“Then there were 250 children. They were put in the dough mixer, they were kneaded. The oldest one of them was four-years-old.”

As well as dealing with ISIS, Duma has been the site of bloodshed and violence as the city has found itself at the heart of the Syrian civil war.

The brutal killings were highlighted by Congleton MP Fiona Bruce before Parliament.

Recounting Dr Isaac’s testimony, Mrs Bruce said: “She showed us recent film footage of herself talking with mothers–more than one– who had seen their own children crucified.

“She told us of a mother with a two-month-old baby. When Daesh knocked at the front door of her house and ordered the entire family out, she pleaded with them to let her collect her child from another room.

“They told her, ‘No. Go. It is ours now.’”

The horrific killings comes as ISIS continues to wipe out Christians in the Middle East, targeting believers in Iraq and Syria.

The report, by charity Open Doors UK, found Christians in the region have been taken hostage, church leaders assassinated, homes and businesses destroyed and women and girls raped and forced into sexual slavery.

ISIS terrorists took the Christian town of al-Qaryatain, Syria in August 2015, trapping the town’s 300 Christians and murdering 20 who tried to escape.

Christians returning to the town, which has been liberated by rebel forces, have found their homes and businesses reduced to rubble and landmines left by ISIS littering the town.

Before 2011, Syrian Christians numbered about eight per cent of the population of 22million. [Other data indicate it was more like 12-15%, numbering around 3 million]

Today about half are believed to have left the country. [Thus Christians are being finally and completely driven from our ancestral homeland, where Christians have lived for 2000 years, 600 years longer than any muslim. Indeed, the name “Christian” was created in Antioch in Syria]

 

Chilling.  Christians, crushed between the vice of islam on the one hand and progressive meddling on the other.

As Vox Cantoris notes in several other posts, the United States government under Barack Hussein Obama is directly responsible for this ongoing genocide and cavalcade of unending, nightmarish atrocities.  It was Obama who gave the green light for Syrians to rebel against Assad, and to Turkey to fund and arm them.  It is Obama who has made practically every single possible error that could be made surrounding this hellish, unending conflict.  It is Obama who is flirting with world war by antagonizing Russia as much as humanly possible, not only in Syria but in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The way things have developed, it’s almost as if Obama wanted to turn some of the most important countries in the Mideast over to the most radical muslims (go figure, from our first muslim president). Certainly he tried, but fortunately failed, so far, in Egypt.  He largely succeeded in Libya.  In Syria, he ran into a lot more opposition than he expected, and continues to not comprehend that, with Russian support, Assad is very unlikely to be removed from power.  Now the best thing for the West (especially the US) to do is to focus on the real enemy (ISIS) or totally disengage.  What the Syrian people, especially the few remaining Christians, need most at this time is not saber rattling or geo-political gamesmanship but the quickest end to the war possible.  I pray the next president has the wisdom to stop trying to play god and meddling in the affairs of nations everywhere and terminates all these endless and totally fruitless wars*.

*- I’m okay with continuing efforts against ISIS if those efforts are done seriously and with a clear objective, and not the pretend war Obama’s been fighting for the last two years, spending billions of dollars burning up aircraft hours boring holes in the sky and dropping maybe one or two bombs a day on camel herds.

Advertisements

Is Francis’ Theology Dominated by the Heresy of Total Depravity? October 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

A most provocative, but, I think, illuminating post, from Non Veni Pacem.  I’ll just get to it – anyone who has paid attention to Francis’ many disturbing pronouncements has almost certainly observed more than a slight whiff of Calvinism.  But docmx001 argues that far from being simply tainted by Calvinism, Francis is in fact a wholehearted proponent of the central thesis of Calvin: total depravity.  This is part of the incredibly noxious and heretical TULIP theology, which is predicated on the notion that humans are totally depraved, devoid of any good, and utterly dependent on Grace freely given and totally unearned for salvation.  This also figures in with their sicko vision of predestination, that God deliberately creates the vast majority of souls to be damned.

The argument put forth that Francis embraces total depravity is pretty convincing.  It would make a great deal of sense, and could also reveal the hidden psychological motivation, very similar to Luther’s, that gives power to Francis’ wholesale assault on the Faith – unable to overcome whatever sins he himself is attached to, he posits a perverse theology in order to provide an escape clause for himself.  Thus, men are unable not to sin, and sin gravely, but God is so awesome all we have to do is make a one time profession of faith and we are saved, irrespective of our actions.  This would certainly seem to explain Francis’ enormous affinity towards evangelical protestants of the American sort.  Anyway, Non Veni Pacem’s argument:

Francis yesterday continued his twisting of the One True Faith by demonstrating, once again, that Calvinist/Lutheran theology is at the core of his own false religion. All the “mercy” that Francis talks about is NOT the mercy of God, but rather a false mercy, because it is grounded in this false idea of Total Depravity.  You absolutely MUST understand Total Depravity, and why it is false, if you want to make sense of how Francis operates.

First, here are the comments from yesterday: HERE

“Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person. Rigidity is not a gift of God. Meekness is; goodness is; benevolence is; forgiveness is. But rigidity isn’t!” he said. [Rigidity is not a virtue. But other ways of saying what Francis means – and this is clear through dozens of statements on this topic – certainly are: zeal, conviction, love for the Truth, all these things most certainly are virtues, and were found in all the Saints]

In many cases, the Pope continued, rigidity conceals the leading of a double life; but, he pointed out, there can also be something pathological.

Commenting on the difficulties and suffering that afflict a person who is both rigid and sincere, the Pope said this is because they lack the freedom of God’s children: “they do not know how to walk in the path indicated by God’s Law”.

“They appear good because they follow the Law; but they are concealing something else: either they are hypocritical or they are sick.” [That’s a particularly nasty way to view those holding differing views.  Need I mentions such speech is both unprecedented and unworthy of a pope?  This is not virtuous speech, either.  This is the speech of an ideologue, of one who views those who hold differing ideas as enemies.  Enemies so corrupt in thinking there is something very much wrong with them]

I’ve written so many times about this:  Francis thinks mankind is INCAPABLE of resisting sin and living a Christian life, because he personally is completely lost in sin. He doesn’t just think it is difficult, he thinks it is impossible. Instead of renouncing sin as the path to freedom, he thinks trying to live by God’s Law takes away freedom. [This is possible, I suppose, but I don’t know what evidence we have for Francis being totally attached to personal sin, over and above the errors he very commonly promotes.  I think it possible to fall into the error of a basically Calvinist comprehension of free will and Grace without being completely attached to sin.  Luther certainly was, but then, he had a little bit different conception of will and Grace.  I think the point can stand even if one does not try to prove that Francis has embraced this philosophy out of a personal inability to resist sin.  It could simply stem from what may be his essential rejection of Catholicism and seeming view that protestants are much more right than Catholics on most of these matters]

Kids, this is the very definition of Total Depravity.  Please go look it up. This is why the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc are not simply “variations” of a “reformed” Catholicism.  No, they are a completely different religion, because they deny that men have free will. They deny that a sinful act is the result of a person making a conscience choice to do wrong, because they believe man is so utterly inclined toward sin that resisting it is futile. [I totally agree on the assessment of protestantism as a different religion.  This is absolutely true, and is what made the Lutheran-Catholic understanding on justification such a farce.  Of course, Lutheranism, along with most all the other sects, has radically altered, or toned down, the extremist views of their founder]

Like every wretched heresy, this one is mixed with some truth to make it plausible.  In this case, that men must cooperate with God’s grace on the path to salvation. Don’t be distracted by this. Of course we need to cooperate with God’s grace.

But that’s not all! Total Depravity goes even further, in claiming that even our GOOD choices are evil, because those choices are ultimately always grounded in selfishness. We simply are not capable of doing good, because even when we do good, we do so for our own interests. Our Will is not just impeded by concupiscence, but rather our Will is totally fallen, and we are not capable of choosing to love God.

So, why is this false?  Because Total Depravity violates God’s perfect justice. If we truly don’t have free will, then we can’t be held responsible for our actions. It wouldn’t be fair. But we see throughout scripture that man is absolutely held accountable for his decisions. I mean, isn’t this the whole point? God created us to know, love and serve Him in this world, and be with Him forever in the next. God laid out how to know, love and serve him, and now expects us to do just that. He wouldn’t do that if we were incapable of it.

Again, I agree very much with this assessment of these protestant heresies.  But does that mean Francis shares them?  I think a goodly number of his statements imply, at the very least, a strong sympathy with these protestant beliefs, if they are not consciously embraced by the Bishop of Rome.

We know a number of things: Francis is exceedingly hostile towards Catholics who hold to what might be called the “old Faith,” or the Faith of the Fathers, Saints, and Tradition.  He totally rejects “rigid” understandings of morality and Church Doctrine.  He favors a very modernist, Jesuitical, worldly approach to morality and doctrine.  He is also extremely friendly towards protestants and their beliefs, he has taken part in numerous protestant worship ceremonies, he has lionized and feted the most Calvinist evangelical protestant leaders, and he has even submitted to being blessed (cursed might be a better world) by protestant preachers.

And then we have the upcoming ecumaniacal confab in Lund, Sweden celebrating the greatest tragedy in the history of Western Civilization, the protestant revolt against Christ and His Church.  Already many signs are pointing at an “extraordinary gesture,” an attempt to declare that Lutherans may receive the Blessed Sacrament freely.

Then we have the ongoing synodal process, which has been little but a thinly concealed war against the Church’s entire moral edifice, to bring it in line with…….protestant understandings, more or less.

There is, of course, another possibility, which is the way I have leaned for some time: that Francis is simply a modernist of left-wing sensibilities who completely disregards the idea of unchanging Divine Revelation and Dogma in favor of a morally relativistic approach.  This philosophy would equally propel Francis to attack so-called rigidity and to constantly belittle those who reject his modernist comprehension.  It causes him to feel the Church is horribly behind the times in holding to outdated “medieval” beliefs and practices that are not only unrealistic but unmerciful in today’s world, which he pretends is so very much different from past times.  Of course, human nature never changes and the modernist claim that the Church must change to suit the vagaries of whatever age she finds herself in is nothing but a self-serving excuse for perpetual revolution, but it’s there nonetheless.

With this leftist modernist belief, he would naturally find repugnant those who hold to the constant belief and practice of the Faith, and would seek to radically change practice and doctrine to be more amenable to the ways of the sick and twisted culture in which we live.

So, which do you think has a better basis, or neither?  Is Francis a furtive Calvinist seeking to remake the Church along protestant lines, or is he a left-wing modernist, or some combination of both (or neither)?  It’s an interesting debate and this post is already running very long, but I’m interested to know where you feel the preponderance of the evidence lies.

As for myself, I think the answer is along the lines of both and.  Francis is plainly very favorable to modernists, especially of the evangelical/Calvinist stripe, but he is also I think very strongly tainted with modernism through his Jesuit Latin American background and timeframe.  He is definitely the Bishop of Rome most radically at odds with the perennial belief and practice of the Faith for which a detailed historical record exists.  He is also the one with the means at his disposal – instant communication, constant coverage, every word blasted to the four corners of the world – to do the most damage.

I thank Non Veni Pacem for the stimulating post.

De Mattei: Francis Prefers Leftist Lutherans to Orthodox Catholics October 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

From one of Rorate Caeli’s most recent posts, several significant if perhaps unsurprising revelations from Francis I had missed, given that I now generally avoid him and his pronouncements as much as possible.  Was the Church better off before instant worldwide communication? Hard to say.  It was probably a lot easier on individual souls, however.

The slight – it can certainly be taken as such, and may well have been intended – against Our Lady in ignoring the 99th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in order to receive Lutheran heretics and schismatics in audience (while displaying a statue of the arch-heretic Luther in the Vatican) on the same day is truly breathtaking.  But that’s just the start, as it always seems to be with the Argentine Bishop of Rome (my emphasis):

…..The start of the centenary of the Fatima apparitions on October 13th 2016 was buried under a blanket of silence. That same day, Pope Francis received in the Paul VI Audience Hall, a thousand Lutheran “pilgrims” and in the Vatican a statue of Martin Luther was honoured, as appears in the images Antonio Socci published on his Facebook page. Next October 31st, moreover, Pope Francis will go to Lund in Sweden, where he will take part in a joint Catholic-Lutheran ceremony commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. As can be read in the communiqué drawn up by the World Lutheran Federation and the Papal Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, the aim of the event is “to express the gifts of the Reform and ask forgiveness for the division perpetuated by Christians of the two traditions.”…….[Which expression seems to imply at least an equal sharing of blame for this “division,” if not that more share falls on the Catholic side.  Naturally, this is a complete inversion of reality, but that should hardly be surprising]

…….During his audience with the Lutherans on October 13th, Pope Bergoglio also said that proselytism, is “the strongest poison” against ecumenism. “The greatest reformers are the saints – he added –  and the Church is always in need of reform”.  [This strongly implies sainthood for Luther, does it not?  How many of the Saints warred with all their being not just against protestant heretics but heretics of all stripes?  I guess that fact just has to go down the memory hole for Francis] These words contain simultaneously, as is frequent in his discourses, a truth and a deception. The truth is that the saints, from St Gregory VII to St. Pius X, have [indeed] been the greatest reformers. The deception consists in insinuating that the pseudo-reformers, like Luther, are to be considered saints.  The statement that proselytism or the missionary spirit, is “the strongest poison against ecumenism” must, instead, be reversed: ecumenism, as it is understood today, is the greatest poison against the Church’s missionary spirit. The Saints have always been moved by this spirit, beginning with the Jesuits who landed in Brazil, [No, it started long before that, with the first Apostles] the Congo and the Indies in the XVI century, while their confreres Diego Lainez,  Alfonso Salmeron and Peter Canisio, at the Council of Trent, fought against the errors of Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Yet, according to Pope Francis those outside the Church do not have to be converted. At the audience on October 13th, in an off-the-cuff response to questions from some young people, he said: “I like good Lutherans a lot, Lutherans who truly follow the faith of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, I don’t like lukewarm Catholics and lukewarm Lutherans.” With another deformation in language, Pope Bergoglio calls “good Lutherans” those Protestants who do not follow the faith of Jesus Christ, but its deformation and “lukewarm Catholics” those fervent sons and daughters of the Church who reject the equalizing of the truth of the Catholic religion with the error of Lutheranism. [Indeed.  Still more, what is being extolled here is one religion – modernist sexular paganism – while warring against the Faith instituted by Jesus Christ.  That’s what this conflict has always come down to, from Tyrell and Loisy to Congar and Rahner to Bergoglio and Kasper]

All of this brings us to the question: what will happen in Lund on October 31st?  We know that the commemoration will include a joint celebration based on the Liturgical Catholic-Lutheran guide, Common Prayer, elaborated from the document From Conflict to Communion. The Common Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, drawn-up by the Catholic-Lutheran Commission for the unity of Christians. There are those who rightly fear an “intercommunion” between Catholic and Lutherans, which would be sacrilegious, since the Lutherans do not believe in Transubstantiation. Above all, that it will be said Luther was not a heresiarch, but a reformer unjustly persecuted and that the Church has to recuperate the “gifts of the Reform”.  Those who persist in considering the condemnation of Luther proper and think his followers heretics and schismatics, must be harshly criticised and excluded from the Church of Pope Francis. But then again, what Church does Jorge Mario Begoglio belong to?    

A rhetorical question, obviously, as to ask the question is to answer it.

As for just where Francis may stand in the grand scheme of things, including the state of his soul, a reminder from Saint Paul’s Letter to Titus, Chapter iii:

10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:

11 Knowing that he that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

There have, of course, been multiple admonitions directed at Francis.  We are generally not privy to the tack those interventions have taken, however.

I think one thing it is safe to say, Francis will not be the Bishop in white of the Third Secret? I can’t see the world taking shots at him, when he’s doing such an awesome job for them.

A Completely Unexpected Endorsement of Trump October 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, foolishness, fun, General Catholic, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sickness, silliness, Society, The End.
comments closed

h/t reader TT:

ot

In this strangest of election years, that actually makes sense.  I think one thing is certain: the left is convinced they are a hair’s breadth from irrevocably changing this nation along lines they find amenable to their diabolical purposes.  All the amazing torrent of revelations that have come out in the past several weeks, including 6 figure payoffs to important bureaucrats to keep Hillary out of court, if not prison, and the open admission of massive electoral fraud, show both the lengths to which the Left is prepared to go in this election, and their firm belief that any and all means are acceptable when they are this close to their final goal – a permanent demonrat majority, at least at the national level.

Regarding yesterday’s post – I really don’t want or intend to hash out those extremely emotional arguments that tend to surface whenever whether or not to support Trump runs up against those squarely in the Never Trump camp.  I have never been wholly in that camp, but neither have I been wholly convinced I would vote for Trump.  Over time, I’ve drifted away from the former and towards the latter, however.  I don’t think emotionally charged and little-supported arguments claiming either that one is morally obligated to vote for Trump, on pain of sin, or, conversely, that voting for Trump is betraying the conservative movement (whatever that means, anymore), are going to sway me or anyone else.

In reality, I think this country is finished no matter what, and that this election is far more kabuki theater than reality.  As such, who I vote for probably makes little difference.  At this point, I’d put Trump’s chances of winning at no better than one in five, and probably more like one in ten.  That doesn’t mean I won’t vote, but I do so with near total resignation.  No matter who wins, I think the long slide into oblivion will continue with quickening pace.  I’d be very happy to be proven wrong, of course.

Sorry if that harshes your mellow.