KILLING STATUES: Christophobic Mobocracy in America ~ Remnant TV

Shocking! 84% of Catholics Reject that Satan is a Person and Hell Exists

The Church is Ready to Capsize!

By Fr. Daniel Doctor,

The Roman Catholic Church, that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ.  This Church was established by Christ Himself to be the sole means of salvation for
all of humanity. As Catholics, we know of no other way to salvation except through the sacramental system established by Christ and given to His Apostles.

Why is the Catholic Church in Near Chaos and Confusion?

Careful analysis of recent studies and polls taken among Catholics reveals that an overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics simply do not believe in the Devil, or sin, or it’s logical consequences – eternal damnation in hell.  As we can see, with any kind of an reasonable observation of that the outcome, is that the Church is in a state of near chaos and confusion over what She teaches and what She does not teach.  The overriding reason for this is because bishops, the clergy, teachers and parents, have completely failed in their duties to transmit the Faith to each of the successive past four generations.  And there are huge consequences for this failure.

Pray for Our Church

A lack of a belief in the Devil, sin, or hell makes it very awkward for all of us during the Easter Liturgy, when it comes to the renewing of baptismal promises.  When the priest asks the people, “Do you reject Satan?” . . .  “Who Father? We don’t believe in him anymore.  Silly priest, asking us such stupid questions . . . believing in such archaic things . . . .”

What most of us were nottaught – is that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith is an integrated belief system, where one teaching is dependent on every other teaching, creating a whole and concise theology.  Rejection of the Devil as a personal evil, or sin, or even hell, does incredible theological damage to the whole of the Catholic Faith. In fact, like any teaching we like to change, reinterpret, or ignore, the entire faith is undermined and in some cases can even be destroyed.

Read the rest of this important post here:

The Pope changes the Church’s teaching on …

executioner of the Papal States

By Fr. Ray Blake

The Pope changes the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, is running on Twitter and a few blogs at the moment. Well that is not true, Popes do not, cannot, change Church teaching on anything, not even when they speak Ex Cathedra, All Popes can do is clarify.

The two ‘classical’ acts of such clarification, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption in many ways were completely unnecessary at the time of their promulgation, except to promote Papal power. The Church had and always will believe the Theotakos was ‘full of grace’, and had been from her beginning, what the doctrine does is say that Mary’s beginning (and therefore our beginning) happened not at birth or at her quickening, or ensoulment but at the moment of conception. The Assumption, with its deliberate ambiguities reconciles the western doctrine of the Assumption and the Eastern doctrine of the Dormition, it purifies the doctrine of possible unnecessary pious legends.

Do Pope Francis and Archbishop Paglia Believe Hell Does Not Exist?


If one considers the transformation of Plato’s Academy, champion of eternal truth, into a center of radical skepticism against which St. Augustine wrote his Contra Academicos, or contemplates the splits and changes that have occurred in all other philosophical schools, one will see that the preservation of Catholic doctrine over two millennia is a miracle. Considering likewise the countless divisions between and within the different Protestant confessions, as well as in other religions, it is evident that the way Catholic teaching has survived intact, becoming increasingly clear with each confrontation with error, is a wonder far greater than healing the sick or making the blind see.

Add to this the fact that many priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes not only lived very bad lives opposed to Catholic teaching, but rejected many Catholic doctrines, or simply did not believe them. Any purely human institution would long since have been dissolved, or suffered inner divisions and contradictions that would have been reflected in its creeds and official teachings.

In the Acts of the Apostles, Gamaliel declared the Church’s survival impossible unless it were established and preserved by God. The same line of thought underlies Boccaccio’s famous story in the Decameron, of the Christian merchant and the Jew, who converts precisely because the many unworthy and worldly men whom he met in the Vatican did not destroy the Church, which therefore must be of God. When one observes that “the Church” gloriously overcame the many crises it suffered, one can only mean the true voice and official teachings of the Church. One cannot deny that these same errors have lingered until the present day, and even gained force in many circles despite having been recognized and condemned.

In the last fifty years, the crisis that threatened the Church most gravely is one of moral theology and of the understanding of “natural law.” This crisis became dramatically clear after the publication of Humanae Vitae. At first, theologians who opposed the document sought refuge in the sanctuary of moral conscience, the supreme subjective norm of morality. Instead of seeing conscience as founded upon the objective truth about good and evil, upon the infinite dignity of God, and the towering dignity of man, instead of recognizing that conscience is called to form itself through the truth, these men saw it as a subjective generator of what is good and evil—for me. As if it were not necessary that conscience correspond to objective moral norms that are inscribed in the essence of things and of human acts, and in the eternal holiness of God.

Yet the moral-theological phalanx that turned against Humanae Vitaewas not content with saying that the ethical errors and gravely disordered acts of those who practice contraception are purely subjectively justified by their erring conscience. Instead, these opponents suddenly wanted to claim the full objectivity of their opposition to Humanae Vitae, saying that we do not deal here only with erring consciences (tirelessly invoked by Rocco Buttiglione in his defense of Amoris Laetitia).

Defenses of the subjectivity of conscience still implied that the sinner, who found himself entangled in errors of conscience, should be better taught and humbly submit his judgment to the objective truth about the intrinsic wrongness of his acts. Rejecting this, the new proportionalist and consequentialist ethical theory (really a rehash of old ideas) allowed theologians to claim: Under many circumstances the acts Humanae Vitaecalled intrinsically wrong are, objectively speaking, not wrong at all. Those who disobeyed Humanae Vitae not only had every right to follow their own conscience, even against the Church, they were objectively right when they chose to do so.

Whether this position was called “proportionalism,” “consequentialism,” “purely teleological ethics,” “situation ethics,” etc., the point was the same: It threw overboard the central teaching of all ethics since Socrates, Plato, and Cicero, and throughout the history of the Church—namely, the teaching that there are intrinsically wrong acts. Acts such as lying, raping a woman, abortion, murder, euthanasia, using false judgments to fulfill one’s own lust—as did the old judges who accused Susanna of adultery because she had refused their evil wishes—are always wrong and gravely disordered. The young Daniel’s glorious act of uncovering their lie and injustice, and his just judgment against these evil old men, brings home with gripping force the existence of acts of injustice, lies, calumnies, killing the innocents, etc., that are absolutely and under all circumstances wrong; they are what is called an intrinsece malum.

Now this new moral theology, advocated by Fuchs, Demmer, Böckle, Schüller, and many others, denied that any act could be judged morally, except in terms of its good and bad consequences. Hence, there does not exist an intrinsically and always wrong human action. If an action, whatever its inner nature may be, promises to lead to a lessening of evils in the world, it can be justified. We can easily see that with this ethics nothing in Catholic moral teaching would remain intact. Because no act would be bad by its nature, but good or bad only with reference to the concrete complexity of life and the web of causes and effects.

Read more here:

The Unserious ‘Serious’ Discussion About Guns: There is no real moral philosophy informing it.

by George Neumayr in the American Spectator

The philosophy underlying liberalism is at once totalitarian and relativistic. It proposes more government and less morality. It laughs at the mustiness of the Ten Commandments, then demands respect for a flurry of new laws. It scoffs at old codes of self-control, then presses for “gun control” and greater state controls on this or that freedom.

From this ethos, regnant for decades in elite circles, has come an out-of-control society in which pols reflexively respond to unspeakable tragedy by advocating more and more laws for a people whose gradual loss of virtue guarantees that they will violate them. The terminus of this toxic admixture of totalitarianism and relativism is the transformation of society into a kind of prison: an endless number of laws and deprivation of freedoms imposed on an increasingly soulless citizenry. Of course, the people running such a system, the totalitarian elite, make sure to exempt themselves from the confines of the prison even as they boast of its glorious benefits. Recall the Soviet thugs who would impress Western visitors with stats proving the Soviet Union’s “low crime rate,” or Fidel Castro showing visiting dignitaries “how safe Havana is.”

That is the utopia to which gun-control liberals hope to lead America. They clamor for a tragedy-proof America in which “nothing bad ever happens to anyone,” except the massive loss of their freedom. The gun control lobby’s “solution” to crime isn’t the recovery of a civil society that teaches virtue but the granting of more and more power to a state that treats everyone like a criminal.

Conspicuously absent from all the sanctimonious lectures on gun control this week was any grappling with America’s cultural meltdown, which is the most comprehensible explanation for a spike in mass shootings even as laws and restrictions multiply. Indeed, the loudest voices for gun control come from the degenerate cultural forces most responsible for that meltdown. They demand that America “get serious about gun control,” even as they get less and less serious about the values and institutions most essential to the preservation of civilization. Educrats who have decimated America’s public schools profess shock at an increase in “school shootings”; late-night hosts who roll out the red carpet for blood-and-gore stars wonder at the “glamour of violence”; an elite that prides itself on destroying the traditional family is aghast at the rise of so many mass-shooting misfits who come from “broken families.”

All of the hasty calls for more gun control from these preening frauds conveniently ignored that the Las Vegas shooter used illegal guns. If anything, the tragedy is an indictment of their exclusive focus upon legislation as a solution to criminal pathology. That they would politicize it so quickly, without bothering to engage any of the facts of the tragedy, underscores the opportunistic totalitarianism always lurking beneath their demagoguery. They never let a crisis or a mass shooting go to waste.

According to the media, late-night comedy talk show hosts now serve as the “conscience of the nation” at these fraught moments, which sounds about right for a democracy as fatuous as ours. In between showing clips from the latest demented, violence-drenched Hollywood movie, they are going to lead the nation towards “sensible gun control,” apparently. “Sensible gun control” is the elite’s euphemism for making sure that everyone except their bodyguards is deprived of guns.

Beware of the word “sensible” in the mouth of statists. It is what they say right before they violate a right. Obama’s call for “sensible conscience protections” foreshadowed his fiat violating the consciences of all employers by forcing them to cover the abortifacients and contraceptives of their employees. “Sensible gun control” foreshadows the destruction of the Second Amendment.

The left is neither sensible nor serious about controlling wicked behavior. If it were, it would seek to shore up the foundations of civilization, without which the multiplication of laws is useless, to which the tragedy in Las Vegas attests. It is insensible to think that good laws can protect the innocent without a functioning civil society that reinforces them. It is precisely the fruit of that civil society, a culture of self-control, that the liberal elite has done the most to poison. Liberals favor “gun control” without self-control. In the end, this just means more and more government control — an endless cycle of relativism leading to totalitarianism.

What is the legacy of the last 50+ years of leftist protesting?

Image result for protest looting

The progressives and an endless spin-off of groups has captured the media for an insufferable amount of time. We have had legitimate protests before, of course, and they were usually on national topics of concern; civil rights, the increased involvement in Vietnam come to mind. They were topics that concerned us all as a nation and as moral concerns.

But am I the only one that has noticed that for the last 50+ years there seems to be a protest of the day club that concerns insignificant numbers of people who have decided that they are victims or that some imagined plot is afoot to oppress them? You rarely see counter protests from the other side although there are always a few right wing nuts looking for a brawl who might show up at one of these daily events or even hold a rally for some really radical ideas in order to spark a riot and get their names in the paper. But in the main, it is leftist progressives, socialists, marxists and communists who get 24/7 attention by the media and, of course, there are those who want to fight for their right to be as immoral as they want and the rest of you can just shut the hell up.

When I went to college, racism was considered a dead topic to most of the youth, many of whom stood with blacks and did what they could to right the wrongs of the past. In that short space of time interracial friendships emerged that were cut short by the demands and the violence of groups such as the Black Panthers. My former friends informed me one day that they could no longer be seen hanging out with white people anymore . . . they had to show ‘solidarity’ with their ‘brothers and sisters’ (meaning other black people). Since that time race baiters have abounded and multiplied due to the work of people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others who made their living by creating divisions, spawned many spin-off groups with various demands and it paid them surprisingly well. Most have done nothing in this life but create chaos for a living and got rich in the process.

Of course these same tactics are employed by the left today, not only for blacks but for gays, transgenders, muslims, legalized drugs, taxing the rich, widening the government’s ‘obligation’ to give them a bigger piece of the pie even though the pie consisted largely from the taxable profits of those whom they detested. The outcome has become, I think, a spiraling down into a society that is looking more and more like a lunatic fringe of anarchists rather than a cohesive group of patriotic citizens who are protesting for a better world and society.

I can no longer turn on a TV or go to a movie or eat in a restaurant or watch a football game without some idiots protesting something. It is on the sitcoms, the weather channels, the sports channels and almost anywhere you turn. And, of course, it sucks all the oxygen from the news channels so that it seems nothing else at all is going on in the world or nothing else is of such importance as the present grievance du jour.

Every single protest of every single individual, no matter if it is 1 person or a hundred people, is worth smearing all over the place. We have had scores of protests for things that turned out to be untrue; fantasy protests if you like. We start to wonder if we have spoiled our children into a hedonistic solipsistic society that no longer believes in work, patriotism, moral right and wrong or the good of the country or the world in general — simply themselves at a given moment in time. Others have a more sinister motivation such as using protests to line their pockets with whatever loot they can get by destroying storefronts and stealing everything in sight. Some get their kicks from setting fires and getting in fights or actually killing another person in the streets.

I have, as has the rest of America, been recently driven away from sports by those who would drag ‘politics’ (actually self-gratification) into a product that people were buying simply for the product. Believe it or not, some of us actually want an education to be about learning something, the weather to be about the weather, a comedy show to be funny, and a sports game to be strictly about the game itself. I’ve about had it, to tell the truth.

I don’t know the answer to this unraveling of civil society other than staying away from TV, movies, restaurants and large crowds of people where these protesters seem to show up on a daily basis. To paraphrase an old cartoon: there oughta be a law.

To sign or not to sign: Fr. Ray Blake’s Blog

How very sad this is.


Thursday, September 28, 2017

To Sign or Not to Sign

I have been asked to sign the Filial Correction, I signed the letter of the 45 academics and pastors last year, and almost immediately found Cardinal Nichols’ tanks parked on my lawn to inform me of his displeasure, which was quite mild unlike other lay signatories, who were sacked from their jobs in Catholic institutions for their pains, Dr. Josef Seifertis being the most high profile. I admit it, I am afraid to sign and I know other priests who share my fear. Many of those who might have signed have in the last four years have a certain fear about their place in the Church.

Rome and those surrounding the Pontiff have certainly become more vicious in defending him, never ever engaging in intellectual arguments, merely attacking like ravenous wolves or child bullies those who pose questions. The climate is bad throughout the Church, in Rome it is positively toxic. Under Francis the Vatican has become a place of fear and arbitrary oppression, there was a public glimpse of that in the sacking of Cdl Mueller by the Pope, and earlier in the dismissal of a couple of priests from the CDF and amongst laymen of Libero Milone, former Auditor General and many others. It is not just in theology that 2+2=5, or whatever number the Pope chooses that day, it extends to morality and ordinary human decency, ultimately it is a serious attack on the rationality of the Catholic faith and intellectual rigour.

The abusive attacks on any one who asks legitimate filial questions or even of people like Cardinal Burke and the other “Dubia Cardinas” or even Cdls Sarah or Mueller  by the likes Austen Ivereigh, Rosica or Spadaro merely echo the statements of the notoriously immoderate Cardinal Madriaga the senior member of the Pope’s Council of Nine or the shocking insults always aimed at faithful Catholics by the Pope himself. Let us not even go to the shenanigans and manipulation surrounding the Synod on the Family.

Barnhardt’s take on the filial correction

Quick Periscope Check

I’m on pilgrimage, consulting with very wise, experienced and influential people.  The opportunity arose, and I jumped on it. I will be back to the Van Down by the Other River Saturday.  SuperNerd and I will try to do a Podcast then, if schedules align.

A few quick notes. In terms of the Filial Correction, you all know what I’m going to say.  It’s great that people are DOING SOMETHING.  Wonderful.  You know that virility and potency are big themes around here, so kudos for that.  Also, kudos for calling out Bergoglio’s Modernism and Lutheranism.  I was really impressed with the strength of the language.

BUT… I can’t endorse the document because it is based on the false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope, which he is not.  No matter what you do, if your base premise is false, you WILL NEVER resolve the problem.  You will keep hitting dead ends that are catastrophic.  This knot will never be undone so long as no one is actually trying to undo it.  Think about Our Lady under her title of Undoer of Knots.  Do you think it makes any sense to hand Our Lady a huge knot, and then ask her to only undo it 20%?  No, Our Lady undoes knots COMPLETELY, and it is a lack of faith to not ask her to undo a knot COMPLETELY.  The fruit of the Fifth Glorious Mystery of the Rosary, the Crowning of Our Lady as Queen of Heaven, is trust in Mary’s intercession.  In order for this knot to be fully undone, the base premise MUST be true, and the following things MUST occur:

Bergoglio must be publicly acknowledged to be an Antipope, and be removed. The Bergoglian Antipapacy must be nullified. Bergoglio must repent, revert to Catholicism, die in a state of grace and someday achieve the Beatific Vision. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger must be acknowledged as the only living pope, and due to the circumstances, no conclave should be called until Ratzinger is dead. Pope Benedict XVI must also repent of what he has done, die in a state of grace, and someday achieve the Beatific Vision.

THAT is the knot that must be undone.  Anything less is still a huge, crippling knot.

Second: regarding the rumor that Bergoglio wants to abolish the College of Cardinals and appoint his own successor, I heard this very early in the Bergoglian Antipapacy from a well-connected Italian cleric in the late summer of ARSH 2013.  I was scoffed at by people in the Rome Anglo-Sodomite-Intellectual circle, but now it seems that the initial indications were credible.  I suspect people like Tucho Fernandez, riding high in the early days of the Antipapacy got a little too chatty, and was overheard bragging about the long-term plans of the Bergoglian antipapacy.  I also have the sinking feeling that Bergoglio wants to name Tucho “Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing” Fernandez, his closest collaborator and his ghostwriter, as his “successor”. Sit in stillness with that.

Third: as I have been screeching for years now, Bergoglio and his ilk literally hate God, His Holy Church, and beyond that, western civilization, that is to say CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION, and they actively want to see it destroyed.  These vile wretches would walk through something like the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy, the single greatest collection of art in the world, a pure product of Christian culture, and they would be enraged by it, and desire to see it all eventually destroyed.  Bergoglio and his ilk look at something like the destruction of Venezuela and derive pleasure and satisfaction from that.  They genuinely want to destroy all white, Eurocentric, CHRISTIAN civilization, with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church at the top of the list for destruction.

The proof?  This quote from Antipope Bergoglio:

“I am worried still more by the sad awareness that our Catholic communities in Europe are not exempt from these reactions of defensiveness and rejection, justified by an unspecified ‘moral duty’ to conserve one’s original cultural and religious identity.”

Folks, he is calling the desire to NOT have the Catholic faith exterminated by islam and/or secularism IMMORAL.

If you do not desire the death of Christian Culture, you are a bad person. Not only is there no moral duty to preserve the Faith, much less preach the Gospel to all nations, but to do so is an immoral act in and of itself – a form of bigotry.

St. Athanasius, pray for us.

Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.

Christ, have mercy on us.

Have we been left to the viciousness of the wolves?

P.S. Is Bergoglio working to make it possible to pick his own successor? Also, it seems to me that you can tell alot about a man by those whom he holds close and promotes as opposed to those whom he shuns and demotes.

From the Remnant:

%d bloggers like this: