Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Say No to building modern Notre Dame..Petition
« Last post by songbird on Yesterday at 09:53:40 PM »
Life site news has and does mention new order bishops/priests as Pro-life.  I have to disagree.  First of all, their ordination brings no life to the people at the altar, at a confession etc.  Also, these new orders give money to abortion via Catholic charities and these clergy know what they are doing.  IMO, that is what I see.  Not good!Then for a strike out, they serve the government, not the souls.
Crisis in the Church / Re: The Resurrection and Cremation - Fr. Wathen
« Last post by Incredulous on Yesterday at 09:51:01 PM »
So what happens if you purchased a plot at one of the Traditional camps (SSPX, etc.), and then joined a different one? Do you get a refund, or will they allow you to be buried in original place where you purchased the plot? Will the funeral insurance cover such issues?

If it were me, I'd try to sell it to the faithful of the "Traditional camps" at the fair market price.

The funeral insurance will pay-out a lump sum. 

Make-up a funeral planner, that includes a budget and the details of your burial ahead of time.
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Tell us about your good deeds!
« Last post by Seraphina on Yesterday at 09:50:28 PM »
Umm...anonymous mean anonymous.  What part about an anonymous list of good deeds exactly do you find offensive??

What a weirdo!
The fact that you refer to yourself in the first person, I, me, my is offensive to Our Lord, especially on the day He died because of your sins and mine  Even though you don't name yourself, either IRL, or by a Web name, the fact is that you're tooting your own horn.  Want to edify others and inspire to good works?  Attribute your good deeds to God or to another.  
Yes. I'm a weirdo, several priests and one bishop have referred to me as that, and I have a learning disability.  There's much more and much worse. 
Anyone in their late 70s and older was probably catechised before V2 was finished, or before V2 reforms were put in place. And most NO masses are mostly the elderly these days, so it's quite a large proportion of people who still attend Mass regularly. The toning down and declawing of catechising in schools was a very gradual process too, my father who went to school after V2 was still catechised well in school and told all the "non-PC" things they'd be afraid to teach today(e.g EENS). So my grandparents had no reason to be concerned with what the Brothers were teaching him, and even in a scenario where the teaching had been toned down, most people would put that down to modernists refusing to teach properly rather than the Church actually abandoning its dogmas. 
The issue of changes to schooling is separate from the changes to the Mass.  The new mass came first, and was the priority.  All else came after the new mass was already accepted.  If you were corrupted by the new mass, your Faith was already damaged (and for many, on life support), even if your schooling was mostly "normal".

And people were shocked by the changes to the Mass, but the Church had decreed what the Church had decreed. For most people it was out of question to just stop going to Mass, and they'd be afraid of committing schism by attending societies such as the SSPX if they had even heard of them. For example, Tolkein famously continued to shout out Latin responses in Mass, so he was very upset with the new rite. But he kept attending the NO despite clearly preferring the old rite, and I believe it's for the reasons I listed. 
Traditionalism started day 1 after Vatican 2.  Many catholics of this generation left new-rome and many priests did as well, in order to preserve Tradition.  Your description above is revisionist history.  What Tolkien did, in his particular country, is of no consequence to what 1,000s of Catholics did in America to keep the Faith.

Why would someone stop attending their local parish Mass because some other diocese had some pro-gay event or whatever? What does that have to do with the Mass?
Traditionalism is about MORE than the mass.  Keeping the Faith is more important than the mass.  A catholic cannot attend his indult mass, where Fr X says a reverent liturgy, and ignore the fact that 2 hours later, Fr Y comes in and dances around (ON THE SAME ALTAR) and makes jokes and hands out wine and cookies.  Or worse, Fr X says both the indult AND the new mass, which is the height of hypocrisy.  This type of action is inconsistent with catholicism - you cannot accept evil to get good.  The end (having a reverent liturgy) does not justify the means (accepting the abominable new mass as the "ordinary" form).
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Another reason for concern
« Last post by Anonymous on Yesterday at 09:39:56 PM »
We don't need that kind of "diversity" in the USA. We need to stick to Catholics, protestants, and a few atheists and agnostics mixed in. We can handle some non-believers. But these strange, Eastern religions just don't mesh with American culture at all. No Muslims, Hindus, or other bizarre crap that needs to stay "over there" where it came from. Just look at life in any of those countries. Does it look like America at all, in your wildest imagination? Even the worst American neighborhood? I didn't think so.

I'll take Sunday Catholic, mainstream lip-service protestant, residual Christian, and secular irreligious any day over these backward, superstitious Hindus and similar. We don't need people pooping in our streets.

At least bad Christians and agnostics speak English, dress like Americans, eat hot dogs and hamburgers, have an aversion to pooping outside, don't have statues they call gods, and at least don't stand out in daily life in America.

Diversity is weakness, not strength.
This website withstood organized cyberpressure  to remove these articles. The outcry only served to make them more widely known. This is a small ultra-Episcopalian (and anti-Catholic?) group by the looks of things, but these articles are very good:-
Hinduism - “Satanic to its core”
Friday, 25 September 2015 13:01 K B Napier

Hinduism is the third most popular religion, said to have started about 4000 years ago. Personally, I would have made it younger than that, for 4000 years ago marks the Noahic Flood, which was well before the Tower of Babel was constructed, and when God divided people by imposing a variety of languages upon them. The earliest documents showing Hinduism were written about 400 BC (the same time as Buddha added his wicked unbelief to the world; it is no coincidence, but a concerted effort by Satan to destroy God’s authority). This is about 200 years after the Tower of Babel was built.
As with Buddhism, Hinduism represents the wickedness of the people who were dispersed eastwards to India. They were dispersed because they wanted to become as God, and, after being dispersed, those Middle Eastern peoples who travelled to what became ‘India’, invented pagan religious ideas that are a direct insult to God. Therefore, today, its millions of followers are antagonistic towards the one and only God, the God of Abraham, etc.
And, like Buddhists, Hindus are said to be peace-loving. Not so! In the Indian state of Orissa, hundreds of Christians were attacked by Hindu mobs, who demanded that they convert to Hinduism or be killed, along with their children. This is no different to the wicked ISIS attacks on Christians in Syria! 50,000 Christians were left homeless, 59 were murdered, and thousands of houses and churches were burnt to ashes. All this was sanctioned by the World Hindu Council (The Guardian, October 2008). In the ‘conversion’ ceremonies Christians were forced by priests to eat cow dung and drink cow urine “to purify them”. Rape was also a feature. Since that time nothing much has changed. What else can be expected from people whose religion is not just pagan but demonic?
I once knew an Hindu priest who lived in the UK. He boasted about having sex with countless white girls, and of having many children by them, none of whom he supported. He also said that as an Hindu he would say whatever his host wanted to hear (by this simple deception he was greeted and acclaimed as a Christian convert by a local church, to their utter dismay soon afterwards, in spite of my warnings that he was a deceiver. He indeed turned out to be a liar). In the UK he studied as many religions as he could, so that he could ‘blend in’.
In the West, Hindus have a room in their homes dedicated to a shrine and other trappings of Hinduism, with figures and images of their gods. A Christian man stayed a night in an Hindu home and was awoken by a demon in the shape and figure of an Hindu god. The man was warned by the spirit that the home he was in belonged to him, and warned him to leave. The demon only left after the man cast him out in the name of Jesus.
It is a simple truth, that where Hinduism is, there is demonic activity, and this can spill over into violence. Some Hindus are demon possessed, but most do not require this ultimate demonic activity. All they need to do is obey the demons by maintaining their Hindu beliefs and practices, which form a deep delusion. This is just as effective as being possessed, and is just as dangerous to any man, woman, and child who comes into contact with them.
The Guardian (25th December 2014) reported that many new movies were using Hinduism as a main theme. Star Wars is one such major series of films. More recently is Vedic. In between are many plots in the various Star Trek TV and film offerings. Then there are the Matrix movies, and more.
Decades ago, I noted the popularity of Yoga and Yogic religion (Hinduism) spreading across the USA in particular; and those hungry for a selfist spiritual experience (but NOT that of Christ!) are even willing to pay large sums to gurus, who preach simplicity while driving Rolls Royce cars! The Beatles made this popular in the 1960s, opening up the dangerous occult system to people worldwide, the number of adherents now numbering about one billion worldwide. Though claimed to be the oldest religion in the world, it is not. The ‘religion’ of God in the Bible started at Creation and slowly developed as God gave knowledge, until it found its final form in Jesus Christ’s birth and death.
Hindu hatred is not just aimed at Christians; Hindus also hate atheists. August 2015 saw the brutal murder of an atheist blogger in India (he was not the first), and others, who were critical of Hinduism, have been attacked at various times, in both India and Pakistan (where Islamists will murder non-Muslims anyway).
What Is Hinduism?
A mark of the falsity of any religion is the way it divides into many paths, sometimes contradicting each other. Like Buddhism, Hinduism has many ‘types’. It is no coincidence that both Hinduism and Buddhism arose at about the same time, in the same northern area of what became modern India. Nor is it a coincidence that both share similar concepts, for Hinduism considers Buddhism to be just a branch of its own paganism. Hinduism even named its Lord Shiva ‘Buddha’, before Gautama Buddha was born. However, there are differences. But, so what? Both are demonic!
A Fusion of Many Pagan Ideas
Western scholars are right in saying that Hinduism is a fusion of many Indian ideas, which, in Christian terms, are all demonic and anti-God. In summary, Hinduism teaches honesty, not injuring other living beings, patience, self-restraint, compassion, etc. Note how above I refer you to their contradiction by modern Hindus!
“Prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include (but are not restricted to), the four Puruṣārthas, the proper goals or aims of human life, namely Dharma (ethics/duties), Artha (prosperity/work), Kama (emotions/sexuality) and Moksha (liberation/freedom); karma (action, intent and consequences), samsara (cycle of rebirth), and the various Yogas (paths or practices to attain moksha). Hindu practices include rituals such as puja (worship) and recitations, meditation, family-oriented rites of passage, annual festivals, and occasional pilgrimages. Some Hindus leave their social world and material possessions, then engage in lifelong Sannyasa (ascetic practices) to achieve moksha.” (Wikipedia).
Possibly the most popular Hindu practice in the West is Yoga, though almost no western Yoga user knows that every position in yoga is a prayer to the various gods. This is what makes yoga as dangerous as its beliefs.
I remember arguing in the media against Hindus (especially after noting that our local CofE cathedral held yoga classes in its aisles!), because they claimed yoga can be practised without reference to Hindu religion. It is a big lie, for the positions used ARE the religion! There are many other ways to enjoy physical exercise, without endangering one’s soul and spiritual walk! (Note in the description above, how yoga is a pathway to attaining Moksha [liberation/freedom] – so it IS part of Hindu religion).
Hindu texts can be ‘heard’ (Shruti) or ‘remembered’ (Smriti). The texts cover theology, mythology, philosophy, rituals and temple building. Important texts are the Vedas and Upinishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bjagavad Gita, Puranas, Manusmriti and Agamas. (These are all ‘smriti’). But, it does not matter what name they have – they are all anti-God and worthless. Modern ecumenists say we must ‘respect’ other religions and their adherents. NOT SO! This is not how God views them! To Him they are detestable, without value, ready to enter hell.
As Christians we CANNOT respect what hates or opposes God, but may only respect people as fellow beings. All we can say is that though Hinduism is the religion of Indians and Nepalese, there is no commonly agreed central figure or set of beliefs. In itself this makes it simply an human philosophy with sub-sets. And, as with Buddhism, a philosophy with added demonosis. Associated similar religions are Sikhism and Jainism.
The Core
When those with what could be termed ‘Indian’ language moved away to India after the sudden making of new languages at Babel, they finally rejected the God Who divided their languages, by formulating an idea about an ‘Impersonal Supreme’... the opposite of the personal God who punished them, Jehovah. This was almost a childish insult. Some, however, do worship a god of sorts (or many gods, drawing a conclusion that Hinduism is polytheistic). Like any other divided and false religion, a variety of demands are made to worship the orthodox. For some this is obeying the Vedic texts. Others demand obedience to Sanatana Dharma.
Though part of Hinduism, the caste system is regarded by some as just a social corruption of Hinduism (yet it persists to the detriment of millions). Hinduism also teaches karma and samsara (reincarnation), but so do Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists. This latter point shows us that these various religions are not unique but are simply strands of the same wicked paganism – human pay-back for the dividing of languages that brought the Tower of Babel to nothing.
Most Hindus believe in a supreme god, whose various qualities and characteristics are represented by a wide variety of deities. As with Buddhism, karma and continuous reincarnations are a feature. That is, how a man is reincarnated in the next life depends solely on how he was in the previous life. This, then, is very much self-help, the eastern version of Arminianism and similar to Buddhism. How different with the one true God, Who accepts us in this life if we are saved by His Son, Jesus Christ. No hassle, no reliving countless lives until we somehow make ourselves acceptable! Diwali (Festival of Lights) is the best known festival.
This is the pagan equivalent to our ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’, supposedly our ‘true self’ that is connected to God. In biblical terms our spirits are dead until God regenerates and saves us, and until that time we have no connection whatever to God. The Hindu ‘self’ is said to be eternal. Biblically, our souls and spirits are NOT eternal, because eternal means we are God. Rather, our souls are created at the time of our conception in the womb, and our spirits are dead at birth. The spirit indeed continues after death, either in Heaven or hell, but it is definitely not eternal.
The spiritual idea of Atman often causes some Hindus to show no interest in the world, leading to ascetism. Many Romanist monks try the same route to knowing God, and fail miserably, because what matters in us is a spirit made alive by God through salvation. Having long white hair to the ground and wearing stage-paint will do nothing to please God!
This means duty, virtue, morality, or religion. It is Dharma that supports the entire universe and society itself. It makes ‘nature’ grow grass, food, causes the sun to shine, and makes us moral. So, we see that Hinduism is definitely ‘Arminianistic’ in style, by insisting that works of men can cause these things. In our Bible it is God alone Who performs these creational tasks and gives us our moral codes. To make matters worse, each person’s dharma is different (svar-karma: illustrated by the Bhagavad Gita), and so is his path to ‘enlightenment’. In scripture there is only one way to this – God and His word.
Correct actions depend on one’s own svar-karma, and are said to be a service to ‘God’ and to humanity. Yet, I find it insulting to God’s created beings to serve higher castes who treat them abysmally...
Hindu goodness is much linked to a man’s caste, which he must obey (varnashrama-dharma). Of course, to be expected, it was, and is, the highest caste, the Brahmins, who adhere the most to this idea. There are four castes or classes:
  • Brahmans or Brahmins - the intellectuals and the priestly class who perform religious rituals
  • Kshatriya (nobles or warriors) - who traditionally had power
  • Vaishyas (commoners or merchants) - ordinary people who produce, farm, trade and earn a living
  • Shudras (workers) - who traditionally served the higher classes, including labourers, artists, musicians, and clerks
The first three classes are called ‘twice born’ because they are born from the womb, and then receive a ‘sacred thread’ to signify their status. These classes usually go through four steps or ashramas:
  • Brahmacarya - 'celibate student' stage in which males learned the Veda
  • Grihastha - 'householder' in which the twice born male can experience the human purposes (purushartha) of responsibility, wealth, and sexual pleasure
  • Vanaprastha - 'hermit' or 'wilderness dweller' in which the twice born male retires from life in the world to take up pilgrimage and religious observances along with his wife
  • Samnyasa - 'renunciation' in which the twice born gives up the world, takes on a saffron robe or, in some sects, goes naked, with a bowl and a staff to seek moksha (liberation) or develop devotion (you might recognise this latter, from the westerners who wear saffron robes and beg in the street).
Karma and Samsara
Karma says that each action has an equal reaction, now or in the future. (In reality, for Christians, this is not the case, for God can remove the result of our sin, or reward us for good). For the Hindu the result of something done in this life may not be felt until we are reborn into another life, or even in heaven or hell. God tells us that everything on this earth ends with our death. After that, the Judgment.
Samsara or reincarnation is continuous, our next life dependent on how we were in the last life. Hindus think their souls at death are carried by some ethereal body to our next body, which can be human, an animal, or even a divine being. Moksha ends this continuous cycle of events, when we are at last liberated.
This refers to the goals of an individual, which depend on his stage in life and position. There are said to be three goals: virtuous living or dharma, profit or worldly success, and pleasure, especially sexual pleasure as a married householder and more broadly aesthetic pleasure. (A fourth goal of liberation [moksha] was added at a later date). These purusharthas are similar to the idea in godless western minds, that people have different goals and desires, but each is legitimate.
This is a transcendent power beyond the universe. Some translate this as ‘God’, though the idea of God in Hinduism is not quite the same thing. Rather, Brahman is a ‘power’ that upholds and supports everything. Some Hindus think this power is the self, while others think it is separate. Brahman pervades everything but Hindus do not worship ‘it’. (Note how many charismatics worship ‘it’, which they define as the Holy Spirit, though their use of ‘it’ means they see Him as an impersonal power rather than as a Person).
Most Hindus believe in their self-styled ‘God/god’, but different groups define ‘god’ in various ways. For example, ‘god’ is said to be an ‘absolute reality’ (note the avoidance of a personal quality), who makes and destroys the universe many times over. Because ‘god’ can have many forms, he can come forth as one of the gods who are representative of his many characteristics. These are depicted on temple walls, in images, etc. Thus, an Hindu can approach ‘god’ as a woman, as a violent goddess, as a king, and so on. It does not ultimately matter which one the Hindu worships, because each is an aspect of the same one ‘god’. Thus, one Hindu might prefer to worship Shiva, another will worship Krishna, another Kali, and so on.
There are two main ideas about Bhagavan or Ishvara:
  • Bhagavan is an impersonal energy. Ultimately God is beyond language and anything that can be said about God cannot capture the reality. Followers of the Advaita Vedanta tradition (based on the teachings of Adi Shankara) maintain that the soul and God are ultimately identical and liberation is achieved once this has been realised. This teaching is called non-dualism or advaita because it claims there is no distinction between the soul and the ultimate reality.
  • Bhagavan is a person. God can be understood as a supreme person with qualities of love and compassion towards creatures. On this theistic view the soul remains distinct from the Lord even in liberation. The supreme Lord expresses himself through the many gods and goddesses. The theologian Ramanuja (also in the wider Vedanta tradition as Shankara) makes a distinction between the essence of God and his energies. We can know the energies of God but not his essence. Devotion (bhakti) is the best way to understand God in this teaching.
Because ‘god’ can be worshipped variously in a variety of forms, Hindus are often categorised in one of three main types, or paramparas:
  • Vaishnavas focus on Vishnu and his incarnations (avatara, avatars). The Vaishanavas believe that God incarnates into the world in different forms such as Krishna and Rama in order to restore dharma. This is considered to be the most popular Hindu denomination.
  • Shaivas focus on Shiva, particularly in his form of the linga although other forms such as the dancing Shiva are also worshipped. The Shaiva Siddhanta tradition believes that Shiva performs five acts of creation, maintenance, destruction, concealing himself, revealing himself through grace.
  • Shaktas focus on the Goddess in her gentle forms such as Lakshmi, Parvati, and Sarasvati, or in her ferocious forms such as Durga and Kali.
     ( )
The Occult
A question was asked on a blog site: “Is the occult just a twisted copycat of Hinduism?” ( ). The questioner added that palm reading and spiritist channelling (also used by charismatics) are related to Hindu practices. The title of the query was more accurate: ‘Early Hinduism the Foundations for the occult?’ The fact that Hinduism speaks of chakras is enough of a sign that Hinduism is occult or ‘Eastern paganism’, which says that because the human soul is a projection of Brahman, the individual is himself – God (another thing taught by big-name charismatics).
In the West, at the same time Buddhism and Hinduism began, Plato was teaching we could reach heaven by philosophy. Really, whatever is not of God is ‘occult’ and owned by Satan, whether religious or not (Hinduism is arguably a religion; rather, it is a ‘way of life’).
“... a connection between Hinduism and the occult can be readily recognized. One does not need be a mystic to recognize the benefits that can serve in individual, whether an occultist or not. Many persons interested in the occult sciences want to abandon the self at times, which alone would substantiate a relative interest in Hinduism. This would include the yoga and meditation practices which the Way of Hinduism has promoted.”
( )
In ‘Satanism and Witchcraft – the Occult and the East – Hinduism and Buddhism’ (, the article refers to the occultist Aleister Crowley, who used Hinduism as a point of contact with the occult.
Yoga is a part of the occult. It means union of self with the divine, to be yoked to Brahman (the ‘infinite’ or ‘universal spirit’). And it is this union behind every movement used in yoga. It is not possible to separate yoga from occultism and it is not possible for Christians to do yoga exercises with impunity. Note that Shiva, one of Hinduism’s most powerful gods, known as ‘the destroyer’, is named Yogi Swara... ‘Lord of Yoga’.
Yoga is said to isolate the soul from body and mind. In the USA alone about five million people do Yoga exercises. It would be an understatement to say that with so many people adopting and using occult methods for ‘relaxation’, we need not wonder how vile movements have taken over the USA so quickly. In response to complaints that yoga is part of a religious movement, yoga teachers deceive by saying that in the West all they teach is the exercise. (The Bloomington Herald-Times, 1991). This is balderdash! Each movement in yoga is a prayer to an Hindu god.
“Sadly, even professing Christians have bought into this lie. Every Yoga teacher is, in effect, a Hindu or Buddhist missionary, even though "he or she may wear a cross, insist that Jesus was a great Yogi, and protest that Yoga is not a religion, but science. This is the most blatant of lies. Yet it has been so widely proclaimed and believed that in America's public schools, beginning in kindergarten and in almost every other area of society today, Yoga and other forms of Hindu-Buddhist occultism are taught and accepted as science. In contrast, Christianity has been thrown out of the schools and is being crowded out of every other area of life in the 'broad-minded' move to replace religion with the New Age 'science'!" (Source: Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust, p. 147.)
Remember that every Hindu will lie if he or she thinks it is convenient for themselves. Islamists do exactly the same thing if their lie propagates Islam. Hinduism is definitely ‘New Age’ as it fits the end-of-times anti-religious ethos. Yet, Satan began its hideous parody of religion when the Jews were being taken to Babylon as prisoners. At best it is a pseudo-religion, a paganism, riddled with the occult.
Another practice of Hinduism is Transcendental Meditation (TM – see my paper on this occult method). And its deceptive ideas are found throughout western society, even in medicine. It is also adopted by many charismatics. Of the six forms of yoga Hatha Yoga is possibly the most dangerous ( ). It deals in supposed psychic centres and powers arising from the spine (sometimes depicted as a snake).
The idea behind yoga is very simple – to draw you into eastern mysticism and occult pseudo-religions. As Johanna Michaelson says: “There is no such thing as ‘neutral’ Yoga”. (Like Lambs to the Slaughter, pp. 93-95). Yoga encourages psychic powers, but in hidden form. TM is only one of about four missionary movements within Hinduism. Though it is often denied, Hinduism is pantheistic, for Hindus see ‘God’ in everything.
In many ways the Hindu notion of ‘God’ is found to have its shadow in the charismatic use of the term ‘It’ to describe the Holy Spirit (a Person). I say this because charismatics adopt many New Age theories and see the Holy Spirit more as an impersonal power than as a person – and this is how Hindus see ‘God’. Also, many big-name charismatics (such as Kenneth Copeland) tell us we are “little gods”: another echo of Hinduism (the Bhagavad-gita). Tantras are another feature of Hinduism...
“The popular perception of tantra among Hindus espoused in Indian journalism, equates it with black magic.” (
“Some tantric aspirants simply feel the union is accomplished internally and with spiritual entities... a ‘union’ could mean the actual act of sexual intercourse... chanting and sacrifice... cosmic joining of the divine principles of Shiva and Shakti...”
“The Indian Tantras, which are numerous... are the voluminous source of present and practical orthodox Hinduism.” (Quoted from John Woodroffe, in the above).
A ‘tantra’ is said to be a dialogue between the Hindu gods Shiva, and Shakti/Parvati (his female equivalent). Between them they discuss how men can achieve moksha (enlightenment), or some desired practical objective. Broadly, tantras include:
Mantra and Yantra
In both Buddhism and Hinduism mantras are central, because they focus the mind through contact with the gods Shiva, Ma Kali and Hanesh (elephant-headed god). Mantras are repetitive words used to reach a heightened sense of being. In this, also, charismatics are guilty (such as constantly repeated choruses, or the chanted name of ‘Jesus’, with arms upheld).
These are expressions of the ‘ultimate’ Para Shiva or Brahman. They can be approached via worship (using flowers, incense, etc), or meditation, when a practitioner experiences visions of the deity. Temple dances are meditation in movement (like dervishes in Islam).
Concentration on the Body
For example, the one meditating may see his head as the moon, the heart as the sun, and his genitals as fire. Many groups tend to speak of energy centres (chakras – ‘wheel’), which accompany occult powers (siddhi).
Essential to tantra is the idea of kundalini, a flow of energies through the chakras... but some may disregard this idea. Note that this supposed flow of energies is reference to spiritual energies (also present in hatha yoga), so a chakra is a reference to demonic activity.
Breaking of Taboos
“The act of breaking taboos is the definitive feature of ‘left-hand Tantra’... (especially) sexual taboos... (those who indulge are said to have an animal disposition.. they regularly eat meat and are intoxicated... considered to be dishonest, promiscuous, greedy and violent). A fundamental requirement of all tantras is the initial transcendence beyond this base state (requiring) a strict regimen of penance, meditation, sensory control, cleansing self of negative thoughts...” (As above)
Spiritually, Tantra is ‘evolutionary’, and “deifies sex as the most approximate expression of cosmic love or God”. (As above). “Modern Tantra may be divided into practices based on Hinduism and Buddhism.” Eastern gurus say this about their beliefs and practices:
“All of these gurus espouse a similar philosophy, and they all turn it into practice in a similar way. It is a pattern that we find not only in tantra (Indo-Tibetan occultism), but in European satanism, antinomian gnosticism, and ancient pagan sorcery as well.” (
“Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, for example, states that witchcraft constitutes "one of the greatest possibilities of human growth." ( )
"True spiritualism [mediumism] is a wonderful science.... It is possible by meditation and spiritual [occult] development to contact departed loved ones." : ( ).
Because Eastern gurus constitute a class of occultists, they, too, are familiar with the territory and warn of the hazards of occult practices. For example, medium Sri Chinmoy, a spiritual "adviser" at the United Nations, states: “Many, many black magicians and people who deal with spirits have been strangled or killed. I know because I have been near quite a few of these cases.”
( ).
“He refers to deceptive spirits who will impersonate a person’s guru in visions and urge disciples to commit suicide. He also mentions several people who died from yogic breathing exercises.” Meher Baba warned about the possibility of death or insanity from the Eastern path and, in fact, like other shamans, believed insanity was evidence of higher spirituality; he also accepted the possibility of suicide as a form of liberation, if it was done with the "proper" motive.
( )
“Note for example the following description of events relating to Muktananda’s own spiritual enlightenment, a path he endorses for his disciples. During so-called kundalini arousal [See article on Kundalini], such experiences may last for months or even years, in which case a protracted insanity and/or demonization must be endured. We quote at length so the reader may have a better understanding of the frightening reality that is frequently involved on the Eastern path. In Muktananda’s own words”
( )
“I was assailed by all sorts of perverse and defiling emotions. My body started to move, and went on like this in a confused sort of way.... After a time, my breathing changed, becoming disturbed. Sometimes my abdomen would swell with air, after which I would exhale it with great force. Often the breath that I took in would be held inside me. I became more and more frightened... my mind was sick with fear.... My thoughts became confused, meaningless. My limbs and body got hotter and hotter. My head felt heavy, and every pore in me began to ache. When I breathed out, my breath stopped outside. When I breathed in, it stopped inside. This was terribly painful and I lost my courage. Something told me that I would die at any moment.... I could not understand what was happening, how it was happening, who was making it happen.... By now it was after 9:00. Someone had seated himself in my eyes and was making me see things.... It seemed that I was being controlled by some power which made me do all these things. My intellect was completely unstable.... I heard hordes of people screaming frightfully... and saw strange creatures from six to fifty feet tall, neither demons nor demigods, but human in form, dancing naked, their mouths gaping open. Their screeching was horrible and apocalyptic.... An army of ghosts and demons surrounded me. All the while I was locked tight in the lotus posture, my eyes closed, my chin pressed down against my throat so that no air could escape. Then I felt a searing pain.... I wanted to run away, but my legs were locked tight in the lotus posture. I felt as if my legs had been nailed down permanently in this position. My arms were completely immobilized.... Then, from over the water, a moonlike sphere about four feet in diameter came floating in. It stopped in front of me. This radiant, white ball struck against my eyes and then passed inside me. I am writing this just as I saw it. It is not a dream or an allegory, but a scene which actually happened—that sphere came down from the sky and entered me.... My tongue curled up against my palate, and my eyes closed. I saw a dazzling light in my forehead and I was terrified. I was still locked in the lotus posture, and then my head was forced down and glued to the ground.... I started to make a sound like a camel, which alternated with the roaring of a tiger. I must have roared very loudly, for the people around actually thought that a tiger had gotten into the sugarcane field.... I am in a terrible state. I have gone completely insane. You may not be able to see it from the outside, but, inside, I am crazy.... My body began to twist.... Now, it was not I who meditated; meditation forced itself on me. It came spontaneously; it was in all the joints of my body. Then, suddenly, a red light came before me with such force that it seemed to have been living inside me. It was two feet tall and shone brightly.... Every part of my body was emitting loud crackling and popping sounds.... At this time, I understood nothing about the various experiences.... Only afterward did I learn that they were all part of the process pertaining to [spiritual enlightenment].... People who have experienced it call it the awakening of the Kundalini. The experiences I had had under the mango trees were due to the grace of my Gurudev Nityananda; they were all his prasad [blessing].... Sometimes I would jump and hop like a frog, and sometimes my limbs would shake violently as though shaken by a deity. And this was what was actually happening; a great deity in the form of my guru had spread all through me as Chiti [consciousness], and was shaking me with his inner Shakti [power].... The power of the guru’s grace enters the disciple’s body in a subtle form and does many great things.... Every day I had meditation like that. Sometimes my body would writhe and twist like a snake’s, and a hissing sound would come from inside me.... Sometimes my neck moved so violently that it made loud cracking sounds, and I became frightened.... I had many astonishing movements like this. Sometimes my neck would roll my head around so vigorously that it would bend right below my shoulders so that I could see my back. When the intensity lessened, I became peaceful again. But because I did not understand these kriyas [spontaneous yoga movements], I was always worried and afraid. Later, however, I learned that this was a Hatha Yoga process effected by the Goddess Kundalini in order for Her to move up through the spinal column into the sahasrara [upper psychic center].” ( )
This is the fate that can overtake all who believe in and practice Hinduism. Or even mere bystanders at Hindu events, or being in an Hindu home. Seriously note the similarity of this shamanistic experience with that of the Toronto Blessing and other charismatic activities. See also the testimony (one of many) below, which again can be found in some form or other amongst charismatics (same source as above):
“Bubba’s eyes rolled up, and his lips pulled into a sneer. His hands formed mudras [yogic positions] as he slumped against Sal, who also fell back against other devotees sitting behind him. Almost immediately, many of those present began to feel the effects of intensified Shakti [spiritual power], through the spontaneous internal movement of the life-force. Their bodies jerked or shook, their faces contorted, some began to cry, scream, and moan. The whole bathhouse seemed to have slipped into another world.... I saw Bubba just enter into Sal, just go right into Sal. From there he went out over everybody else, and then everybody else started going crazy. Sal fell onto me, into my lap, and then everybody else started howling and so forth.”
( )
The fact is very plain – Hinduism is evil and dangerous, whether one is merely near an Hindu, or someone whose friends or family are Hindus, or one is a believer, or a full practitioner.
I remember in the 1960s reading an account by a missionary in India, who foolishly stood on a street watching an Hindu procession. As he watched, a number of adherents suddenly looked at him from the procession and ran wildly towards him screaming abuse. He ran away for his own safety, but that night, and every day afterwards for almost a year, he suffered demonic attacks of a vivid and often physical kind, because he was a Christian and not an Hindu. These daily attacks left him drained, ill, and full of fear.
He issued a warning to all Christians NEVER to align with Hindus or to watch what they do, or to enter an Hindu temple, buy Hindu artefacts, or to enter a shrine room in an Hindu house – not even when in the west. The reason is obvious – Hinduism is heavily wicked and demonic. Its roots hail back to the parting of peoples after God condemned them at the Tower of Babel, and Satan does not forget it. The development of Buddhism and Hinduism are a direct result of Satan’s hatred. Do not be fooled by an outward beauty in Hindu (or Buddhist) writings or events... they are the province of Satan... and he will use any and all means to soften our view of his wicked religious fakes, such softening being an insult to God.
Also beware and NEVER do yoga exercises. (As with the article on Buddhism, remember that this paper is broad and does not cover every possible Hindu practice or belief). Also read 'Hindu Violence'.
Addendum to the original article on Hinduism.
It seems that most who have commented on this article (hundreds were deleted because of threats of violence and abusive language) appear to suffer from selective reading. Let me repeat that the article was based on Hindu sources!
And for those who insist Hinduism is superior to Christian belief, let me illustrate the truly horrific demonic nature of Hinduism with the following information, this time from outside Hindu sources, about the Aghoris of India...
We have all seen the documentaries about the Ganges River and noted the strange naked men covered in what seems to be grey dust. These are the Aghoris, who have been studied for years by scientists “because of their grisly ways of life – eating human flesh and mating with dead bodies...” (Ananya Roy, International Business Times, 11 March, 2017). A recently shown documentary (USA) on these weird people brought angry reactions (no surprise there!) because, said supporters, it was “showing Hinduism in a bad light”. Well, Hindus do that all on their own, and if what Aghoris do is so revolting, it is the fault of Hinduism not researchers.
The author of the documentary, Reza Aslan, was seen eating human brains with members of the group. He commented that the documentary was about the Aghoris and not Hinduism itself. That, however, is disingenuous! If the sect is Hindu, then it is Hindu and what they do is Hinduism!
Roy says “However oblivious to the worldly controversies, these mystical sadhus (ascetics) continue with their lives, high on cannabis and cannibalism...” The claim is simply put – they eat their own faeces, have sex with corpses, and eat human brains.
For me it rings true, because these people are dedicated to Lord Shiva (the destroyer) and Kali (goddess of death). To unite with their gods, the Aghoris undertake bizarre rituals and live in extreme conditions – freezing caves and blazing deserts or thick forests. Reportedly, they are commonly seen around Hindu cremation grounds and smear their own bodies with the ash from cremated bodies. Skulls are used for ornaments, and they smoke cannabis. They stay close to the Ganges to try to unite with their fake gods. The more extreme they are the closer they think they will be to unifying with the gods. Eating their own faeces* is a sign that they shun self and they prefer nakedness to show they want nothing material. (*Note that some homosexuals in the West also do this; it is a sign of satanic corruption of the mind). The oddest and most repugnant idea is to have sex with dead bodies to show they are dedicated to the gods. Many like these people because they supposedly have occult powers.
The above is extreme, but it shows the end result of Hinduism for those who are foolish enough to follow such a final course. In Christian terms the Aghoris are followers of demons, slaves to Satan. He wants to lower people to the dirt, making them appear to be less than human as created by Almighty God. As such these people, like all Hindus, are deceived, but have gone farther down the road of degradation and foulness. What they do, then, is deeply wicked.
Comments have been disabled due to abusive comments with no substance and argument.
We have received an unusually high response to this article!
I would remind Hindu readers that the article is based on Hindu writings, not my own ideas!! So, argue amongst yourselves. Needless to say, we never publish reader’s comments that are vile, wicked, godless, or using bad language. So, there is no point in sending us your comments - they are just deleted.
Suffice to say Hinduism is satanic.
Also note:
Hindus keep telling me their religion is over 4000 years old.
Firstly, this is impossible – the Flood occurred 4000 years ago, and Noah and his family were saved because of Noah’s godliness, not his Hinduism!
Secondly, Hinduism is said to be many fractured sects and branches, there being no single Hindu religion. As for making huge contributions to the world – no multi-religious sects based on demonism can possibly be of any help to the world! Christ is the only answer to the world’s needs.
Hinduismis a demonic stronghold, with no hope or reason to exist.
© August 2015
Published on
Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
United Kingdom

Hindu  Violence
Friday, 16 December 2016 08:01 K B Napier

Our main article on Hinduism resulted in us receiving MANY threats and abusive emails, using foul language and words of violence; this is the reason you will find very few comments below the article. Almost all the abusive emails claimed Hinduism is non-violent. These few notes prove otherwise.
In 1992 an ancient mosque in India was destroyed by Hindu mobs, and similar attacks were made throughout the world. The hatred between Muslims and Hindus is not my concern, repulsive though it is, and though Muslims have slaughtered many Hindus. This article is merely a comment – that Hinduism is NOT peaceful. We should expect this, because it is a religion based on demon worship and beliefs.
Since the Partition in 1947 many Muslims have been killed by Hindus. The reasons given for these murders are irrelevant – what matters is that Hinduism is not the peaceful prayer group the West thinks it is. “Violence against Muslims is frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus.” (Brass 2003, p. 65, and Riaz 2008, p. 165: "Violence perpetrated against Muslims is now naturalized: riots are 'well-known and accepted transgression of routine political behavior in India.' ... 'Hindu-Muslim riots and anti-Muslim pogroms have been endemic in India since independence.').
Referred to as ‘communal riots’, they are simply sectarian violence against minority Muslims. Really, whether incidents are fuelled by hatred for Islam because of past Muslim violence against them, or is the result of politics, it does not matter – there have been mass violent attacks by Hindus.
“Among the largest incidents were Great Calcutta killings in 1946, Bihar and Garmukhteshwar in 1946 after Noakhali riot in East Bengal, the massacre of Muslims in Jammu in 1947, large-scale killing of Muslims following the Operation Polo in Hyderabad, anti-Muslim riots in Kolkata in the aftermath of 1950 Barisal Riots and 1964 East-Pakistan riots, 1969 Gujarat riots, 1984 Bhiwandi riot, 1985 Gujarat riots, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, Bombay riots, Nellie in 1983[7] and Gujarat riot in 2002 and 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. These patterns of violence have been well-established since partition, with dozens of studies documenting instances of mass violence against minority groups.” (Ganguly 2007, p. 135, et al).
Over 10,000 have been killed since 1950, Dhattiwala 2012, pp. 483–516.
“Since September 11, 2001, the world’s attention has properly been focused on the violence of Islamic extremism, but there are also major violent trends in Hindu extremism that have largely been ignored in the United States. In India, this violence is supported by Hindu extremists and their allies in the Indian government, which is currently led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.” (Marshall. Hudson. Org).
“In the past decade, extremist Hindus have increased their attacks on Christians, until there are now several hundred per year. But this did not make news in the U.S. until a foreigner was attacked. In 1999, Graham Staines, an Australian missionary who had worked with leprosy patients for three decades, was burned alive in Orissa along with his two young sons. The brutal violence visited on Muslims in Gujarat in February 2002 also brought the dangers of Hindu extremism to world attention. Between one and two thousand Muslims were massacred after Muslims reportedly set fire to a train carrying Hindu nationalists, killing several dozen people.” (Marshall).
“These attacks were not inchoate mob violence, triggered by real or rumored insult; rather, they involved careful planning by organized Hindu extremists with an explicit program and a developed religious-nationalist ideology. Like the ideology of al-Qaeda and other radical Islamists, this ideology began to take shape in the 1920s as a response to European colonialism. It rejected the usually secular outlook of other independence movements; in place of secularism, it synthesized a reactionary form of religion with elements of European millenarian political thought, especially fascism.”
The current Hindu claim to being the oldest religion in the world is not accurate. The word ‘Hindu’ was first used by English colonialists to describe people of ANY religion who lived east of the Indus River. The Indian Supreme Court held that ‘no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism.’ Only after 1871 did people come to regard themselves as ‘Hindu’ in the religious and national sense.
“Twentieth-century agitation against the British led to the rise not only of the secular and socialist Congress movement but also of the rival Hindu nationalist movement collectively known as the Sangh Parivar (“family of organizations”). The Parivar proclaims an ideology of “Hindutva,” aimed at ensuring the predominance of Hinduism in Indian society, politics, and culture, which it promotes through tactics that include violence and terror. Its agenda includes subjugating or driving out Muslims and Christians, who total some 17 percent of the population.” (Marshall)
“Since it is the world’s largest democracy, good relations with India are important to the U.S. It is also a growing trading partner, a possible geopolitical counterweight to China, and a strong U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. But the growth of often-violent Hindu nationalism threatens India’s tolerant traditions and pluralistic democracy. If religious extremism continues to grow, it will, as we have learned elsewhere, drag India’s democracy, economy, and foreign policy down with it. In the face of such a threat, we cannot afford to be silent.”
What, then, is the real difference between Islamic violence and Hindu violence? None, for violence is violence and it arises from ‘Hindu’ writings. “The teachings that condemn violence are contained in the doctrine of ahimsa, while those that permit it centre around the Kshatriyas - the warrior caste.” (BBC). The same as Islamic writings that contain both ‘peace’ and violence towards others.
There is much more to this, of course, but it still stands that like so many other occult and cult paganisms, Hinduism has its violence, perpetrated outside the normal actions that could be called ‘self-defence’. So, for Hindus to claim Hinduism is not violent is deceptive, just as Islamists claim Islam is non-violent!
Another statement made by our abusive Hindus is that we should love everybody. This is NOT what God does. He hates pagan religions and condemns them. That is why we do the same.
© December 2016
Published on
Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
United Kingdom
the question still remains of in what way they're wrong. ie. do you consider them no longer Catholic, or merely in error and endangering their faith
They are in error; material heresy.  Thus, they do not possess the Faith fully, in general.  I never said they weren't catholic.

So I definitely wouldn't just "accept it."  Would you go further than that, or is that about the same as you would do?  Would you refuse to have anything to do with them?
It depends on the situation.  If you had some family member who was gay, I wouldn't allow them to bring over a partner to the house.  This applies to an unmarried couple as well.  If a catholic relative simply stopped going to church, there's no reason to shun them socially unless they're activist about it.  Your standards might be stricter if you have children who could be scandalized.  You want to be as charitable as you can be, if the situation allows.

1: The reason I asked about Lefebvre is because he clearly saw the notion of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as compatible with the notion that someone could visibly belong to a false religion and still be "inside the Church" somehow.  Your position seems to be that Lefebvre was wrong to say this, but that his erroneously saying so does not constitute either a denial of the dogma or sufficient to make him a heretic.  

It's hard for me to label +ABL because 1) I never talked to him personally nor was I able to get clarification on his quotes, 2) quotes can be taken out of context, 3) He flip-flopped on this issue so it's hard to say what he definitively thought.

At best, he was simply playing devil's advocate and engaging in theological speculation.  At worse, at a few points in time, he made comments that were objectively and materially heretical.  This does not make him a formal heretic, but just wrong on a particular point.  Further, as I said before, the issue of BOD and salvation is a complex one which the Church has not adequately explained.

Given that that's the case, I'm not seeing why you wouldn't give the same charitable assessment to those in the indult who believe basically the same thing.  To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, I'm just saying I don't understand what that reason would be.
Comparing +ABL with an indult catholic is like comparing an apple to a piece of rice - they have nothing in common.  The problem with the typical indult catholic is that they have MULTIPLE and MANY unorthodox views, on many basic catholic beliefs.  The debate over BOD has a complex history.  The indult errors include the entire V2 council, the new-theology of the new mass, and the acceptance of these errors as "normal".  If...and this is a big if...the only error held by an indult'er were the BOD issue, they would still be unorthodox due to their public acceptance of the new mass, which is a requirement to attend the indult.

furthermore, while Vatican II certainly leaves itself open to the interpretation that someone can in fact be saved while professing a false religion,
The lack of clarity in preaching the Truth is just as dangerous, maybe moreso, than a full-blown heresy.
Crisis in the Church / Re: Evangelizing Protestants
« Last post by Seraphina on Yesterday at 09:27:11 PM »
Refer them to solid, pre-Vatican 2 literature.  And this only if they express interest or come to you spoiling for a fight.  If they're trying to convert you, excellent!  It means they know their "faith" and the Bible.  Be careful on the Bible issue.  Conservative Protestants can quote circles around most Catholics, even of the traditional variety.  And the Bible issue does not mainly focus on the fact that we have different Bibles, although true.  Example, what most Catholics believe about Martin Luther's addition of "alone" hasn't been found in Protestant bibles since the early 1900s, not even in the King James version used by fundamentalists.  It's also very helpful to know the Protestant definition of certain words we hold in common.  When a Catholic says, "saved," he speaks of a soul in Heaven.  To a Protestant, this means you've come to a point in your life when you made a decision to follow Christ.  Usually, although not always, it's the result of a crisis of some sort and is based heavily or entirely on emotion, not dogma.  To "convert" has two meanings to Catholics.  To Protestants, it means to leave one religion for another.  Even the words "church" and "catholic" mean completely different things.  On the whole, Protestants are gnostics.  

Evangelizing a Protestant also entails great humility.  Trying to ramrod through, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation!" though true, will not be understood by a Protestant and is resorting to those Protestant techniques that are ineffective, mocked, and rejected.  Be ready to say, "I'm not sure how to answer your question, but I'll find out and get back to you."  Also, pray for the wisdom to know when it's time to back off or back out.  

If asked about pervert priests, a communist pope, Catholics they know who live in open sin yet hear Mass every week, certain "Catholic" politicians, it's just as easy these days to name equally corrupt Protestants and people of all religions.  Remember the televangelists of the 70's, 80's and 90's?  Steer the discussion back to the Faith, not others who fail to practice what they preach.  These have exactly zero influence upon what is Truth and what is error.  Hopefully, you can point to the good fruits of the Faith in your own life.  Just because Cardinals were found to be perverts, doesn't make you or the majority of Catholics or priests the same!

If they love a fiery argument, give them one of Bishop Williamson's sermons or conferences, one that isn't mainly about the SSPX, as that will be unknown to most Protestants.  There's one he gave to what I think was called The London Forum.  If that doesn't start a serious dialogue, nothing will.  But be careful who you give it to.  

Also, form a friendly relationship with the person.  With most people, it's the only way they'll take what you say seriously.  Of course, there ARE exceptions.  If you must be extreme to defend Our Lord, then do it.  Don't be a Vat. 2 wussy who speaks "luv" to someone who curses or desecrates Our Lady, the Church, the Saints, or anything Holy.  I once had to yell at a Baptist work colleague who mocked praying the Rosary.  "Do not ever say that again!" and I walked out, abruptly slamming her door.  

She came to me several hours later to apologize.  She hadn't intended to offend me.  Which gave the opportunity to explain that the real problem wasn't that I was offended so much as that Our Lord was offended.  After all, how would you feel if I made a mockery of your mother?  She gave me the usual misinterpreted verses to refute praying to Mary.  I gave her a refutation by St. Francis de Sales.  She read it and still disagrees, but it put an end to all mocking commentary at work.  She declined to keep the copy I gave her, but she knows where I have it, in case she'd like a second look.  We've remained casual friends.
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Moral Question Regarding Abortifacients
« Last post by Ladislaus on Yesterday at 09:13:03 PM »
Assuming it was consensual sex  - as a woman I would say that the woman’s sin is by a long way the greater.  Sorry feminists.

Depends on how much the OP knew and how involved he was in the use of the abortifacient.
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Moral Question Regarding Abortifacients
« Last post by Ladislaus on Yesterday at 09:12:23 PM »
Very complex question, muddied by consideration of whether the 1917 Code still holds or the 1983 Code is valid (i.e. whether you're a sedevacantist).

Did you know before you had intercourse that the woman would in fact take a morning after pill?  If not, then you did not incur excommunication.

If you knew, I believe that the 1983 Code (and JPII's interpretation of it) is actually more strict than the 1917 code, allowing accomplices to more readily incur excommunication.

Also, the problem with such, especially in the 1917 Code, is that the penalty was incurred only IF the abortifacient produced an actual abortion, which you would likely not know.  Some canonists held that the penalty was not incurred unless it was CERTAIN that the effect (abortion) had been produced.

In one sense it's a technicality, but there's no question that grave sin was involved, not only because of the fornication (or adultery) but also due to a reckless disregard for a possible outcome which might entail an abortion.  It's like driving around drunk.  While you may not have actually killed someone (because you were lucky), you were still putting lives at risk and causing the potential to kill someone, like flailing a loaded gun around recklessly and having it discharge into someone (or miss them) vs. taking direct aim and pulling the trigger.

Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Tell us about your good deeds!
« Last post by Anonymous on Yesterday at 08:45:47 PM »
Yes, by all means follow the example of Pope Francis the humble, who had himself mentioned several times during the latest "Stations" in Rome, mentioning how he had denounced some example of injustice, and demanding to know why every hadn't responded.  It was disgusting.
Do you have some kind of learning disability?

anon·​y·​mous | \ ə-ˈnä-nə-məs  \
Definition of anonymous

1of unknown authorship or originan anonymous tip

2not named or identifiedan anonymous authorThey wish to remain anonymous.

3lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizabilitythe anonymous faces in the crowd… the gray anonymous streets …— William Styron
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10