Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

Btw, what IS a black mass? I downloaded an Audible book on it but haven't had a chance to listen yet. What do they think they're accomplishing with black masses?

...

It is as powerfully evil as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is profoundly powerful for Good.  

...

 

Don't know that I would agree with that. I'm not a theologian, but I would think that would have to be giving the devil too much credit. While a black mass clearly is unspeakably vile, the True Mass's graces should be significantly more profoundly powerful or whatever the correct theological term is. The devil apes God, but can't pull off equivalency.

Back on topic: Italian investigators are now saying that the "whistleblower" has engaged in calumny against the Conciliar Church (if that's even possible; it's a parody of itself).

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=18299

Has Michael Voris weighed back in on this?

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

Btw, what IS a black mass? I downloaded an Audible book on it but haven't had a chance to listen yet. What do they think they're accomplishing with black masses?

...

It is as powerfully evil as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is profoundly powerful for Good.  

...

 

Don't know that I would agree with that. I'm not a theologian, but I would think that would have to be giving the devil too much credit. While a black mass clearly is unspeakably vile, the True Mass's graces should be significantly more profoundly powerful or whatever the correct theological term is. The devil apes God, but can't pull off equivalency.

Nobody is placing satan on an even footing with Our Lord...that should go without saying, but I'm glad to say so in case any one here has some doubt.

The fallen angels have superior demonic intelligence--they are angels after all.  They are doing terrible harm when performing these ceremonies, which is why they used to be burnt at the stake.  Only modernists now believe that all the devil worshipping stuff is medieval superstition.

Hmmm, a golden arch.  Very masonic.  Here is a short description of the meaning of the golden arch in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ:

Quote

"I understand the golden arches as a symbol of the sodomite gateway. The letter "m" is the simple graphic form of a male backside, another in the collection I've presented recently. As arches, the basic elements compare to the royal arch of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, a squared (sides and bottom) circle (arched top) sodomite gateway symbol, and the joining of heaven (arched top) and earth (the bottom on the earth)....."

Very interesting.  The guy promoting this whole thing may have
backed off after accusations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, but there is nothing
to indicate that in the material I've seen.  But obviously, if the
Freemasons were to be accused of having anything to do with a
devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, you can be absolutely
sure that they would be all over an effort to destroy the project,
for they would have no association between the "Craft" and IHM.

The linked website has an "In The News" section that shows a
bunch of items in 2001-2002, then a few in 2003, two in 2004 and
one in 2005, then nothing until 2010, when the announcement of
the NEW DESIGN was unveiled.  It seems obvious to me where the
money is going -- architects and lawyers.  Mr. Behr is supposedly
a lawyer, so he knows all about that.  The New Design site shows
architectural renderings (in poor resolution) that depict a typically
Newmass interior in the chapels*, with seating that curves around
so people in the congregation can stare at each other, and a
prominent Martin Luther Table in the middle of the barren sanctuary,
no communion rail, and the obligatory presider's chair for all to see
the inept pres-byter perched idle while a lectoress reads the
New American Bible, most likely.

*The original design called for 3 chapels, but apparently the new
one calls for only two, one of which (I am disappointed to see) is
apparrently planned for the very summit of the structure.  Nobody
has a word to say why anyone would want to assist at so-called
mass 655 feet off the ground, while the structure you're in would
be swaying to and fro due to the effects of wind on the "Tallest
Monument in the World."

Looking around, I found one of the site links is to a website that
features a short work of John M. Haffert, on Fatima.  In it, among
many other objective errors, is found the following (the questions
seem to be asked by someone and answered by Haffert, but that
is not clear):


Question:
"Why was the consecration of Russia, which Our Lady requested
now in 1929, delayed until 1984?"

Answer:
"Lucia said it was because the world had not responded to Our
Lady's requests and therefore did not deserve it.  Immediately
after the consecration was made in March, 1984, the Soviet
Union began to dissolve."


This longstanding lie that the consecration was done finally in
1984 has been sufficiently debunked elsewhere.  Suffice it to
say that this association of the Arch of Triumph project with a
website that promotes this lie adds more fuel to the fire of
non-credibility.  



Anyway, this probably all belongs on another thread, really.  

The association of the Church with things Novus Ordo is going
to be pretty hard to purge after all these years.  That was the
whole point of this archway diversion, above.

.

Regarding the original topic:

Quote from: Charlemagne

If this turns out to be true (and I have no reason to doubt it, despite the denials of "Rome"), I'm very eager to see the reaction of the fence-sitters who "are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm."

It's easy to be wrong on this. There is a lot of disinformation and people are prone to following false leads. That there is sɛҳuąƖ depravity within the Vatican is a long established fact, so this new story shouldn't be a deciding factor for anyone. There is already enough reliable information to decide.

The argument of the fence-sitters as you call them, would be that there are still some clergy who belong to the organizational structure under Francis, no matter how few, that are still Catholic. However the way good seminarians have been routinely booted out of Rome for being too "traditional" (for at least the last 20 years) speaks volumes against this theory being anything but wishful thinking. Whatever good people are left there simply need to get out before they are lost forever. The fence sitters also make the point of wanting to adhere to a visible Church hierarchy. What and where that hierarchy is now is a good question...

Maizar, below find some copies of posts on a blog by a woman who is
apparently employed by Our Sunday Visitor, and who denies that you
can reasonably say there is any ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ problem going on in the
Vatican.  

That's how bad it is.

Quote from: Charlemagne

Back on topic: Italian investigators are now saying that the "whistleblower" has engaged in calumny against the Conciliar Church (if that's even possible; it's a parody of itself).

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=18299

Has Michael Voris weighed back in on this?

I haven't seen anything yet, but you can be sure he's all over it.

Voris is slated as a featured speaker at the upcoming Catholic Identity
Conference (run by the Remnant):


Saturday Conference:
September 21, 2013
12:30 p.m.
Speaker - Michael Voris
Producer - Church Militant TV
“ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the Catholic Church”



Poking around the 'Net I found a blog run by a lesbian sympathizer
that has an exchange some here may find noteworthy.  This is a page
where the blogger, Mrs. Malinda Selmys, ostensibly challenges Voris
with a 40-point rebuttal in answer to the ChurchMilitant.TV Research
Staff, a request that she provide at least one example of their "errors"
she claims that they've made.  Come to think of it, since there is now
same-sex "marriage" in several states, who knows what would be the
sex of the "The Spouse of Mrs. Selmys"?  (Sorry, I had to laugh
-- that sounds like it could be the name of a thriller movie!) "Mrs.
Selmys" apparently works for Our Sunday Visitor -- see how low OSV
has fallen! (Other, irrelevant posts are omitted here for readability):




Source


Jay Boyd, Ph.D.April 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM

It seems to me that the main point Michael Voris is making is that the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle is defined by the Church as intrinsically disordered; that this disordered behavior has consequences for an individual’s salvation; and that accepting a disordered behavior/lifestyle as “normal” or “healthy” has negative consequences for society in general. Everything Michael Voris says is consistent with CCC 2357-2359, while what you say is not. Please explain how something defined by the Church as "intrinsically disordered," "acts of grave depravity," a "trial" and compatible only with "chastity" is compatible with anything you have written on the subject. Especially in this “point by point” critique, it seems that you are doing your best to argue that the Church is wrong, and yet you claim to accept the teaching of the Church; which is it? Michael Voris says "The Church is right" and you say "Michael Voris is wrong." Please sort that out for me.
Reply




Melinda Selmys April 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Dr. Jay,

The Church's teaching cannot be condensed down to CCC 2357-59. I believe that those paragraphs are authoritative and true, I just also believe in the rest of the Catechism, and Scripture, and the docuмents of the Vatican, and the ordinary teaching authority of my bishops. Michael Voris believes that there is a homomafia conspiracy that has infiltrated that Vatican, and that the USCCB endorsed Always Our Children because they were bowing to social pressure from the gαy agenda. Paranoid excuses like this are stock in trade for arch-conservatives who want to be able to dismiss any Church docuмent that they dislike on the basis that it is not actual teaching, it's actually the result of the infiltrators wreaking havoc within the Church.

I also believe that Catholicism demands fidelity to the truth in all areas of human endeavour. This means that even if the truth in psychology or sociology doesn't happen to dove-tail conveniently with Catholic teaching, that my job as a Catholic is to figure out how the teaching is revealed in the truth, not to try to find a different truth by resorting to junk science. A willingness to actually seek the truth with clarity and without bias is essential to charity because it prevents us from creating a kind of insular "truth" that is incapable of changing the world because it is simply inaccessible to the broader public.
Reply




Jay Boyd, Ph.D.April 6, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Mrs. Selmys,I beg to differ: *Of course* the Church’s teaching can be “condensed” to a few paragraphs in the CCC – especially when that teaching is straightforward and grounded in natural as well as Divine law! You may call Michael Voris “paranoid”, but I submit that your own blinders are firmly in place. Your last sentence in your comment to me (beginning with “A willingness to actually seek the truth”) could apply as easily to you yourself. I submit that you suffer from your own bias that is rooted in human fallibility and susceptibility to emotion – just like the rest of us. That’s why we have Church teaching – because we cannot rely on our own “hearts” or minds. And there are plenty of Church docuмents that reiterate those same CCC paragraphs on the immorality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior. No amount of rationalization can make acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior “charitable”; the only charitable response is to help a person who engages in disordered behavior to see that behavior for what it is, to come to repentance and contrition, and strive for holiness. Perhaps I will attempt a more detailed rebuttal to your response on my own blog in the coming week. And by the way, you may count me among those who believe there is a very big problem with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity at all levels of the Church hierarchy; there is too much evidence emerging to believe otherwise.
Reply



Melinda Selmys April 6, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Dr. Boyd,

You seem to have misunderstood my use of the word "acceptance." When I said that I acknowledge and believe in the Catechism, I meant I acknowledge and believe in the Catechism -- including its teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behaviour. I've clarified this elsewhere, but I understand that not everyone has read everything I've written, so I'll clarify again: by acceptance I mean a psychological process of coming to terms with a reality which may be disordered or unpleasant, but which is none the less real. I don't mean that we should accept sin as though it were not sinful, but that we should accept that sin is a necessary part of the economy of salvation in a fallen world "O happy fault, O happy sin of Adam that has earned for us such a redeemer" as we say at the Easter Vigil. Coming to that head-space where it's possible to cry out with all sincerity "O happy sin of Adam" doesn't mean that reject Christ, but rather that we accept the existence of sin for the sake of Christ. The alternative is the rejection of Christ on account of sin, as is the case in the atheistic argument from evil -- Dostoyevski, in the Brothers Karamazov, gives a brilliant portrait of that atheism which rejects God because it cannot accept the sinfulness that God permits.

As for there being a problem with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the hierarchy, maybe there is, and maybe there is not, but either way it's not our business. It's a private matter for the hierarchy to deal with within itself. When children fall to speculating about the sins and faults of their parents, it is almost invariably because the parents have instructed the children in a way that the children don't want to accept. The child feels that if they point out the faults and failings of their parent, then they will be exonerated from having to listen to and respect the parents' authority. In any case, it's certainly not appropriate to go about trumpeting the alleged faults of our spiritual fathers on air. Even if it were true, it would be detraction.
Reply




Jay Boyd, Ph.D.April 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I’d like to address a couple of points that have been made in the comments above, but which should be refuted:

While the simple act of voting for a pro-gαy-marriage politician may not in and of itself be sinful, Dr. Ed Peters, noted canon lawyer, does point out that Catholics who PROMOTE “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Catholics who support a pro-gαy-marriage politician BECAUSE of the support for gαy marriage fall into this category (and it would be the same with supporting a pro-abortion candidate because of the pro-abort stance). Also, Church teaching stands squarely against any support of “civil unions” for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

The problem of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior within the hierarchy is certainly a concern for the laity! It is not inappropriate to make known our concerns with the gravely immoral behavior of our shepherds; in fact, it is sometimes required. To the extent that the hierarchy promotes or defends ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior within its own ranks, the Church is very badly injured, and the faithful are scandalized. When the hierarchy intentionally promotes the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖist agenda through its selection process in seminaries, and in the way it treats heterosɛҳuąƖ priests, those among the laity who have knowledge and evidence of wrongdoing must not remain silent. Would you suggest that the problem of priestly sɛҳuąƖ abuse of young people is something about which we should be silent?
Reply





Note: all of this took place several weeks BEFORE the OP broke
out yesterday. "Mrs." Selmys on her "sɛҳuąƖ Authenticity Blog" has
no reaction to the news that Voris announces in the OP.  Not only
that, Selmys can't even seem to find anything to say about the
SCOTUS ruling on DOMA the other day:



Thursday, June 27, 2013
DOMA...Ugh
I've been trying to think what to say about the SCOTUS decision. Then Gabriel Blanchard said it for me. Cheers.

http://mudbloodcatholic.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-gαy-catholics-thoughts-on-doma-ruling.html

Posted by Melinda Selmys at 11:43 PM 1 comment: ...







The news Voris has come up with must be devastating to these
types such as "Mrs. Selmys."