Author Topic: Chiming in on SGG and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the clergy (Read 1551 times)

Raoul76 · « **on:** November 17, 2009, 05:40:21 PM »

I wrote this for another thread but it expanded beyond the concerns of that thread

Lover_of_Truth said:

Quote

It appears, based upon what Tom Droleskey has written that Cekeda, Dolan and Sanborn are rather cultish. The una cuм deal is a pretty good way to keep them looked in. . .huh?

LoT, that is like saying that "being against Protestantism is a good way for the Catholic Church to keep people locked in and to steal their hard-earned money."

I have no doubt that Bishops Dolan and Sanborn may be cultish and creepy -- I don't know much about Bishop Sanborn except that he defends Bishop Dolan -- but that has nothing to do with a theological stance against the una cuм. If I were a priest I would tell my parishioners not to go to the una cuм, but I would not be running a cult. I would just be like any old Catholic priest who tells his flock not to worship at ѕуηαgσgυєs or with Protestants or at Buddhist temples, or with anti-Christ heresiarchs who pretend to be Pope.

If they do so, it is their own problem; if they try to get others to do so, after several warnings, I would have to ask them to leave since they are a danger to the flock. I wouldn't make anyone sign any contracts; I would just let them know that they should not be in communion with a heresiarch.

*****

But none of this has to do with our real problem which is an infected clergy. The Freemasons and those who serve them have always worked this way, they pretend to be against each other and play good-cop bad-cop. Think of Pacelli "exiling" Montini, or Montini then doing the same to Bugnini. Now you have Bishop Pivarunas vs. Bishop Dolan, or SSPX vs. the sedevacantist bishops, but they come out of the same narrow inner circle. Bishop Dolan cut his teeth in SSPX and was consecrated by Bishop Pivarunas.

This doesn't mean necessarily that they are all part of a conspiracy, but it is not very inspiring that the traditional world is so small and incestuous and has already produced such types as Dolan and Schuckardt. If Bishop Dolan's troubles lead people to go back into SSPX, hey, the devil wins either way. He's got you there on una cuм and NFP; and in the sedevacantist world he's got you on NFP alone.

What is remarkable to me is the traditional clergy's uniformity on Natural Family Planning. Maybe I'm making connections that aren't there, but I think that this ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ wave of priests is entirely connected to Natural Family Planning, and that they are a punishment, literally a scourge, sent by God to Catholics in these days who don't want to hear the truth, and who have gone along with this.

It is sort of weird that today I was talking to my mom about this, comparing these ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who are natural-born communists to a swarm of locusts, and then I thought of the name Father CEKADA -- Cicada i.e. locust! Yikes.

If you support these priests who teach communism, who pretend to be against the ecuмenism and liberalism of Vatican II while still holding on to one of its worst features -- Natural Family Planning -- you are just going to keep attracting these locusts and/or cicadas into your life. Doesn't anyone else wonder why they use a term from Vatican II, Natural Family Planning? Why is this the one error that has slipped in under the radar, and why is it so ferociously defended, to the point that Bishop Pivarunas uses a textbook from 1963 to try and justify it?

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." What people should be doing is insisting that they will not support priests, teachers, who believe in or teach Natural Family Planning.

There are surely some priests and bishops out there who are not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs or communist infiltrators, who only go along with NFP because it is the majority view and there is a sort of lemming-like peer pressure and mass hypnosis involved. Maybe they never thought about it, assuming it was time-tested doctrine. I know when I first became Catholic, right away it struck me as wrong, but I talked myself out of it, saying "Well, everyone agrees Pius XII was the last Pope and he taught it." I also was convinced by the decisions of the Sacred Congregation in the 19th century without differentiating between modern NFP and the antiquated, ineffective rhythm method. I hadn't yet read "Allocution to Midwives" and seen that the "serious motives" or "grave reasons" to use NFP actually made it worse than birth control, which is already bad enough.

It is actually painful to overcome the comforting fiction that Pius XII was the last true Pope. But as my friend Brian says, for those of good will, that NFP is un-Catholic is UNDENIABLE. And it really is. It could not be more blatantly eugenics and socialism.

This is the way we should attack the root of the problem, instead of lopping off branch after branch, the same routine going on interminably.

****

I believe that many if not most ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are natural-born liberals and have no interest in teaching true Catholic doctrine. They will melt like the Wicked Witch of the West if they are forced to tell the TRUTH.

Have you ever asked yourself why there is this infestation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the Church? Don't you see it is because, having to lie about what they are, they are schizophrenics and double-minded and they have been sent by the devil to make YOU double-minded? Like the Jєωs who reject Christ, the obstinacy and defiance of their lifestyle makes them perfect enemies of God.

This is my own theory, but I also believe that their obsession with appearances, with looks and physical beauty, has something Luciferian about it -- ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is like psychopathic narcissism where you want to have sex with what resembles you, with your own mirror image. Maybe that is metaphysical psychobabble, but it is very noticeable that many ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have a strange, glassy, too-perfect surface appearance. Such is what I've observed growing up in L.A.

I have the feeling they are literally taking revenge on the religion they feel has persecuted them through the centuries. Theoretically someone could be born with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ urges and overcome them and be a good Catholic. But anyone who expresses even the slightest tendency in that direction should be blocked from the priesthood.

I once wanted to be a filmmaker before realizing that Hollywood was nothing but a bunch of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Jєωs, and now it's like I've never escaped. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and Marranos and Freemasons have infiltrated the Church and now it is like a wildfire raging out of control. What can stop it? They have a cushy job, access to choirboys, they can play dress-up... Why would they ever want to quit?

This is a repugnant era in which to live. It has led me to immerse myself in constant apocalyptic fantasies. It can't be right to actually look FORWARD to an apocalypse, can it? I don't want to see people suffering, I don't take pleasure in that at all, but the Holy Spirit is dying and something has to change. I don't see any way out except for the wrath of God.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:12:09 PM »

Your point is well taken. But I wish you would respond to the post I wrote directly to you.

Tom admits that when Cekeda with into his una cuм deal he did not run it past other qualified people to check it. This is arrogance it is not something that someone would due who is at the service of truth but rather what someone who has an agenda would do.

Also he said he would follow-up on what the stay at homers should do on Sundays, it has been two years and he has not followed up. He did what he intended to do. Why should he help souls that do not go to SSG (in his way of thinking)?

Cekeda is your best defense for the position you hold on this issue and that ain't saying much.

I trust the more learned, holy clergyman with nothing to gain from his position, Father Stepanich.

A man who has more theology in his pinky that Cekeda can ever hope to attain. The sinful man's intellect is darkened and his motives are not pure.

Regina · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:12:39 PM »

I was curious what you feel the correct stance should be on natural family planning? Thank you

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:19:08 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I wrote this for another thread but it expanded beyond the concerns of that thread

Lover_of_Truth said:
Quote
It appears, based upon what Tom Droleskey has written that Cekeda, Dolan and Sanborn are rather cultish. The una cuм deal is a pretty good way to keep them looked in. . .huh?

LoT, that is like saying that "being against Protestantism is a good way for the Catholic Church to keep people locked in and to steal their hard-earned money."

I have no doubt that Bishops Dolan and Sanborn may be cultish and creepy -- I don't know much about Bishop Sanborn except that he defends Bishop Dolan -- but that has nothing to do with a theological stance against the una cuм. If I were a priest I would tell my parishioners not to go to the una cuм, but I would not be running a cult. I would just be like any old Catholic priest who tells his flock not to worship at ѕуηαgσgυєs or with Protestants or at Buddhist temples, or with anti-Christ heresiarchs who pretend to be Pope.

If they do so, it is their own problem; if they try to get others to do so, after several warnings, I would have to ask them to leave since they are a danger to the flock. I wouldn't make anyone sign any contracts; I would just let them know that they should not be in communion with a heresiarch.

*****

But none of this has to do with our real problem which is an infected clergy. The Freemasons and those who serve them have always worked this way, they pretend to be against each other and play good-cop bad-cop. Think of Pacelli "exiling" Montini, or Montini then doing the same to Bugnini. Now you have Bishop Pivarunas vs. Bishop Dolan, or SSPX vs. the sedevacantist bishops, but they come out of the same narrow inner circle. Bishop Dolan cut his teeth in SSPX and was consecrated by Bishop Pivarunas.

This doesn't mean necessarily that they are all part of a conspiracy, but it is not very inspiring that the traditional world is so small and incestuous and has already produced such types as Dolan and Schuckardt. If Bishop Dolan's troubles lead people to go back into SSPX, hey, the devil wins either way. He's got you there on una cuм and NFP; and in the sedevacantist world he's got you on NFP alone.

What is remarkable to me is the traditional clergy's uniformity on Natural Family Planning. Maybe I'm making connections that aren't there, but I think that this ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ wave of priests is entirely connected to Natural Family Planning, and that they are a punishment, literally a scourge, sent by God to Catholics in these days who don't want to hear the truth, and who have gone along with this.

It is sort of weird that today I was talking to my mom about this, comparing these ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who are natural-born communists to a swarm of locusts, and then I thought of the name Father CEKADA -- Cicada i.e. locust! Yikes.

If you support these priests who teach communism, who pretend to be against the ecuмenism and liberalism of Vatican II while still holding on to one of its worst features -- Natural Family Planning -- you are just going to keep attracting these locusts and/or cicadas into your life. Doesn't anyone else wonder why they use a term from Vatican II, Natural Family Planning? Why is this the one error that has slipped in under the radar, and why is it so ferociously defended, to the point that Bishop Pivarunas uses a textbook from 1963 to try and justify it?

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." What people should be doing is insisting that they will not support priests, teachers, who believe in or teach Natural Family Planning.

There are surely some priests and bishops out there who are not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs or communist infiltrators, who only go along with NFP because it is the majority view and there is a sort of lemming-like peer pressure and mass hypnosis involved. Maybe they never thought about it, assuming it was time-tested doctrine. I know when I first became Catholic, right away it struck me as wrong, but I talked myself out of it, saying "Well, everyone agrees Pius XII was the last Pope and he taught it." I also was convinced by the decisions of the Sacred Congregation in the 19th century without differentiating between modern NFP and the antiquated, ineffective rhythm method. I hadn't yet read "Allocution to Midwives" and seen that the "serious motives" or "grave reasons" to use NFP actually made it worse than birth control, which is already bad enough.

It is actually painful to overcome the comforting fiction that Pius XII was the last true Pope. But as my friend Brian says, for those of good will, that NFP is un-Catholic is UNDENIABLE. And it really is. It could not be more blatantly eugenics and socialism.

This is the way we should attack the root of the problem, instead of lopping off branch after branch, the same routine going on interminably.

****

I believe that many if not most ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are natural-born liberals and have no interest in teaching true Catholic doctrine. They will melt like the Wicked Witch of the West if they are forced to tell the TRUTH.

Have you ever asked yourself why there is this infestation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the Church? Don't you see it is because, having to lie about what they are, they are schizophrenics and double-minded and they have been sent by the devil to make YOU double-minded? Like the Jєωs who reject Christ, the obstinacy and defiance of their lifestyle makes them perfect enemies of God.

This is my own theory, but I also believe that their obsession with appearances, with looks and physical beauty, has something Luciferian about it -- ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is like psychopathic narcissism where you want to have sex with what resembles you, with your own mirror image. Maybe that is metaphysical psychobabble, but it is very noticeable that many ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have a strange, glassy, too-perfect surface appearance. Such is what I've observed growing up in L.A.

I have the feeling they are literally taking revenge on the religion they feel has persecuted them through the centuries. Theoretically someone could be born with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ urges and overcome them and be a good Catholic. But anyone who expresses even the slightest tendency in that direction should be blocked from the priesthood.

I once wanted to be a filmmaker before realizing that Hollywood was nothing but a bunch of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Jєωs, and now it's like I've never escaped. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and Marranos and Freemasons have infiltrated the Church and now it is like a wildfire raging out of control. What can stop it? They have a cushy job, access to choirboys, they can play dress-up... Why would they ever want to quit?

This is a repugnant era in which to live. It has led me to immerse myself in constant apocalyptic fantasies. It can't be right to actually look FORWARD to an apocalypse, can it? I don't want to see people suffering, I don't take pleasure in that at all, but the Holy Spirit is dying and something has to change. I don't see any way out except for the wrath of God.

All of the Traditional clergy I have spoken to on the the topic of NFP, and I have spoken to many, SV and not agree that this is not something that should be a given but only for grave reasons and with the permission of the pastor first, they agree with Pius XII on this. I'm not sure if my personal opinion can be considered more reliable than Pius XII and all the traditional clergy on this. And no, they are not all gαy masons or either one of the two.

They can make distinctions. We are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays. BUT THERE ARE LEGITIMAT EXCEPTIONS.

Those not in good health, pregnant women, Feast days.

Artificial birth control does something evil. Avoiding sex, under certain circuмstances, is indifferent, it avoids doing a good (OR AN EVIL) for the sake of the greater good.

We must go to Mass every Sunday. But there are reasons why not doing so would not be sinful. In fact, if you had a friend who needed you to save his life while you were on the way to the only Sunday Mass available that day, IT WOULD BE SINFUL TO GO TO MASS and to let your friend die.

This are the distinctions that begginers like you, me and CM fail to make sometimes. We are not smarter than Pius XII and all the traditional clergy.

If they all disagree with you then maybe, just maybe, the one with no theological background is wrong. Just maybe.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:09:30 AM »

Lover_of_truth said

Quote

All of the Traditional clergy I have spoken to on the the topic of NFP, and I have spoken to many, SV and not agree that this is not something that should be a given but only for grave reasons and with the permission of the pastor first, they agree with Pius XII on this. I'm not sure if my personal opinion can be considered more reliable than Pius XII and all the traditional clergy on this. And no, they are not all gαy masons or either one of the two.

Have you read my Midwife of Vatican II thread?

Pius XII was taught at the Modernist school known as the Capranica. His Secretary of State was Montini, his confessor was the Jєωιѕн marrano Augustin Bea -- a Cagliostro figure within the New Vatican -- and he was also the one who helped raise Bugnini, the architect of the New Mass, to power, appointing him the head of an all-new commission to change the liturgy. I have alraedy enumerated, many times, how Pius XII changed the Mass, gutted the Holy Week ritual, changed the VULGATE of the Psalter which had never been changed and was sacrosanct, relaxed the fast laws at a time of crisis for the Church, and so on and so forth.

Think about this; he did all of these things at a time when Masons had almost entirely overrun the Church. How does this square with the image of Pacelli as old-guard, trying to hold onto tradition? He greased the skids to Vatican II and this is undeniable.

On top of that, his encyclicals are rife with communist rhetoric. Let me ask you, faced with all this, why is he protected, and why is this fairy tale sold to us that he was the "last prince of the Church"? Why does CMRI use the Bugnini Missal of 1955, the Missal of a known Freemason? Why, as I asked in my original post, is NFP taught across the board, except by Feeneyites, when even in Novus Ordo there are those who are against it? Something is wrong here.

I am aware that all the clergy go along with Pius XII and that is the tragedy. If there are "grave reasons" to use birth control, natural or unnatural, why didn't they exist for thousands of years until right on the eve of Vatican II?

And here is the real irony -- the "grave reasons" don't make NFP better, but WORSE. They take it from simple birth control into the territory of eugenics and socialism, since Pius XII is saying that we can deliberately impede birth due to poverty. This is in effect a way to kill off the poor; it's like what they're doing in China, forced abortions, except here it works through simply getting the poor couple to use "natural" birth control.

The result is that Catholic countries like Spain now have the lowest birth rates in the world. Do you see how big this is?

As for the priests you know not being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs or Masons; how do you know? But as I said, I gather that most of them are simply going along with the majority opinion and have not given this much thought.

What is very, very troubling is that most of the clergy are baby-boomers who grew up with this doctrine and thus think that it's ancient and accepted; if they would go back to Aquinas or Augustine they would see that it is not.

As I said elsewhere, Lover of Truth, Aquinas says that a woman cannot refuse her husband the use of the conjugal act even if he's a leper. Aquinas then says "If a child is born from such a union, it is better to be thus than not at all." That is how Catholicism was really taught throughout the ages. God wants everyone to have a chance at life and at heaven, and he doesn't want humans to determine who gets to be born and who doesn't. I'm sure you know why -- because that would be called playing God.

Pius XII takes aim at the poor, saying you can use what he called the exclusive use of the safe period, later to be known as NFP, for "economic" reasons -- he takes aim at the sick, saying you can use NFP for "eugenic" reasons -- he also says you can use it for "social" reasons whatever those might be -- perhaps overpopulation?

At any rate, this is what Thomas Droleskey would call statism. It is also socialism and eugenics. It is much, much bigger than just birth control, though counseling that would be bad enough.
It is not good enough to go back to the false "Golden Age" of Pius XII to understand why NFP is a heresy; you have to go back further.

I have written Thomas Droleskey about this by the way and urged him to use his site as a forum to show the truth about NFP. I haven't checked my E-mail though because, having admired the man, I'm worried that he will not agree with me. I'm running out of people to trust and it's getting scary. But I don't expect people to wake up to the truth about NFP right away; I know I have to have patience and let the Holy Ghost do its work.

Study Natural Family Planning. I'm telling you, this is a nuclear bomb. This may be the biggest heresy of all time and the devil's masterstroke. You may not believe me considering how many other people take the opposite view, but you must understand how we are teetering on the verge of a precipice and that this is the Great Apostasy. When you realize that NFP is part of the apostasy, perhaps the key element of it, you will realize just how many people have apostasized.

Follow the DOCTRINE, no matter how many people are on the other side. This is not about numbers any more than it was at the time of Noah. Am I saying that I am to be trusted more than your clergy? Absolutely. Because what I say is backed up through the ages. Do you think Aquinas or Augustine would have taught NFP?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:35:25 AM »

I have to walk my dog, but first I want to amend my original post.

I shouldn't have stated as if it were fact that Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. I had read that post saying that they were being brought up on charges of pedophilia, and had noticed that it didn't seem to garner much of a reaction, which it would have if it were true, so I have no excuse for acting like it was fact.

I had refrained from saying much about SGG up to this point because I didn't want to be rash. I just figured that, when you add up the strange behavior of Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada with all the rumors about them from so many sources, that there has to be some truth there. And there probably is. But it's better to say that they are possibly ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rather than that they definitely are.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2009, 07:03:21 AM »

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2009, 07:12:21 AM »

I am unable to hold myself upon the learned traditional clergy as you do. Though I would be the first to point it out loud and proud if I could be convinced that they were unanimously teaching error.

Should read: I am unable to hold myself ABOVE the learned traditional clergy as you do. Though I would be the first to point it out loud and proud if I could be convinced that they were unanimously teaching error.

Sorry about the numerous other typing and grammatical errors in my post.