Let the Feds do violence to them. I suspect the reason Francis condemned capital punishment was because there was inkling that something was coming to a head. Wuerl is a faggot effeminate, he will sing like a bird.
Asher Garcia
As a Catholic it is absolutely amazing seeing their ineptitude at ruining the image of the Church. You have two thousand years of impenetrable philosophical and societal excellence, but now when religion is needed more than ever you ruin any moral authority you might ever have had by protecting pedo scum.
Vatican II was a mistake.
Nathan Gomez
I am pretty confident the feds will get this predatory snake by his sneaky snake dick and yank him by it straight into the H-Unit.
Jaxon King
Almost all of this abuse isn't pedo but ephebopohilia--twinkish, post pubescent, underage young men. McCarrick raped full grown men. This is homosexual behavior plain and simple.
This is generally untrue. There are entire prison complexes with only pedos because of their mortality rate.
Aiden Murphy
Michael Voris and his "extremely reliable sources" strikes again.
When will this suited up pole smoker stop embarrassing himself?
Elijah Walker
Yes, yes I know. I quit listening to him back in 2013. When E Michael Jones exposed him as a sodomite (albeit supposedly now chaste) I wasn't surprised. Yet, the threat of using RICO is real. It is plausible.
We Catholic Americans need to put pressure on our local Bishops to state the crisis is a homosexual crisis OR force the narrative by posters, graffiti, or something of the like that this crisis is related to a homosexual network. There used to be something called Catholic Action during the pontificates of Pius XI and XII. It was counter-revolutionary action against the tide of classical and neo-liberalism. We need a new spirit of Catholic Action to force the (((media))) to cover the existence of a homosexual network like the Italian media has.
What I truly don't understand is why they'll take your house for poaching a deer but yet the Catholic church can continuously rape children and not have their assets seized
David Wood
Not only this, since the US Bishops have been giving cover to Americanist causes for decades, I have no doubt that the intelligence services involved in human trafficking are involved with some of these men. There's also that to consider. The largest parishes in the nation have been drained of funds over this shit. Unfortunately, the abuse in the Church is dwarfed by abuse in the secular realm--namely the public school system. But judgement first comes to the House of God, and then to the world. We know by the sheer numbers of insurance reports that abuse in Protestant sects is greater than that of the abuse in the Catholic Church, but it doesn't make headline news.
Not a fan of Voris over his hissyfit with SSPX and other traditionalists but he finally came out and implicated the pope. youtube.com/watch?v=yScaroYHlVw
Christian James
Hard to take the guy seriously desu
Tyler Flores
because they dont give a shit about the church.
>Vatican II was a mistake vatican II didnt actually say much, the bishops just decided to do things their way and no one stopped them
Henry Garcia
I agree, especially after reading E. Michael Jones' short book on Voris exposing his homosexuality.
Justin Nelson
what other traditionalists?
i dont like him attacking sspx either theyre based, but Voris is 1 of the main guys denouncing sodomy in the clergy
The Remnant (Michael Matt), Hillary White, Steve Skojec of OnePeterFive, Fatima Center (Fr. Gruner, Chris Ferrera, Fr. Kramer [a decidedly odd fellow but anyway]) and the late-great John Vennari of Catholic Family News to name a few.
Owen Lopez
I didn't even know that part. The whole "tough guy" act seemed really smarmy and annoying. Reminded me of Ben Shapiro "owning" green haired freaks screeching about nonsense. Something about the smug self satisfaction of it made it very offputting.
hhmm strange. hes is pretty opinionated and strong willed thats for sure, but i think both of those are strong pluses seeing the church is so feminized these days. also i find it hard to believe he was critisizing them too much unless they went against church teaching.
He is a very strong force for traditionalism and authentic Catholicism and masculine Catholicism. Addionally, his site is very good at investigative journalism and whats more important is he is also influential, his his website is like 4th most popular around 1 million views per month.
Julian Barnes
>4th most popular Catholic news site
Ryan Long
>investigative journalism I would agree on this point. Yet, his financial benefactors were the ones who put a lid on any criticism of the pope, even while Francis was phoning Catholics and telling them that they could divorce and remarry, while he met with trannies, while he told Scalfari that hell did not exist (and then the Vatican denied this was said, then published it on their website, then removed it, then published it in a book of "Francis' Interviews" under the Vatican publishing house), on and on and on. I saved that interview in a pdf knowing it wouldn't be up for long. docdro.id/1wLHgIP or full address docdroid.net/1wLHgIP/interview-with-pope-francis-by-mr-eugenio-scalfari-losservatore-romano-9-october-2013.pdf
The clergy is covering up for child molesters and the pope is teaching heresy. If the devil hasn't prevailed against the church then the phrase is meaningless. I'm actually really glad this is all happening now because I've been studying to become for a few years now and of course leaning towards conversion, and this exposes Christianity as a fraud. It's not true. If Christianity was true then the gates of hell would not prevail against the church that Jesus Christ built. The vicar of Christ is protecting pedophiles and telling us that all other popes in history were teaching sin on the death penalty.
Evola was absolutely right about the church. Despite its rhetoric against Marxist it has been infested.
Christian Ramirez
> Yet, his financial benefactors were the ones who put a lid on any criticism of the pope unless you have proof - i just want to say i disagree with this. my personally opinion is that he just wanted to stay loyal to respecting the office of the Pope and did not think any thing the Pope did until this point was worthy of denouncing. he had no problem support those who have issue with the Pope and highlighting their disagreements and positions. He just stayed clear of directly attacking the Pope and thats understandable to me. When it become necessary, he came out strong like he always does.
Nolan James
>>this exposes Christianity as a fraud >when members of the Church don't live up to Christ's teaching of the Church that means that it's all a fraud!!! >if Christianity was true then there wouldn't be sinful men in the Church!! Matthew 13:24-30 >[24] Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. [25] But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. [26] And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. [27] And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? [28] And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? [29] And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. [30] Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. There will be good and bad within the Church until the end. This is merely the purification and the exposing of the rot. Grow up.
Gavin Rogers
All of this drama played out in 2014. There was plenty of investigative journalism done on the financial backers (Opus Dei; the post-conciliar money-making "conservative" wing) and the rest of this. I'm really not interested in going into all of it. If you're interested, look to Catholic Family News (John Vennari, when he was still alive), Louie Verrecchio (now at akacatholic.com), Randy Engel (of Rite of Sodomy fame, exposing sodomitical prelates in Church), and I believe The Remnant did some work on this, too.
Joshua Powell
>this exposes Christianity as a fraud >when members of the Church don't live up to Christ's teaching of the Church that means that it's all a fraud!!! >if Christianity was true then there wouldn't be sinful men in the Church!! You damn well know this is a strawman. It's one thing for there to be sinful men (which there are and this does not mean Christianity is false). It's another thing entirely when the Pope (who according to Catholics derives his authority directly from Jesus who supposedly said that the Pope is the Rock on which Jesus would build his Church against whom the Gates of Hell would not prevail) protects pedophiles and teaches heresy.
Austin Gutierrez
I'm going to reply even though it's impossible to have productive conversations with people like you, people who can't read. I'm not saying the church is untrue because it has bad people in it. I'm saying the church is untrue because the vicar of Christ is teaching heresy and he also happens to be protecting pedophiles. It's not just him either, the entire clergy is infested with people like him. The church is infested with evil. That's what it means for the gates to have prevailed against the church. Jesus lied.
Caleb Powell
>It's another thing entirely when the Pope .... Has the Church failed? Has the sacrifice of the Mass ended? It has certainly ended in among the Mahometan and Protestant sects. What of Pope Liberius who made a deal with the Arians? I'm sure there were plenty of people over a thousand years ago that thought this. Or during the Great Western Schism when there was 3 popes. Or when popes like John XXII taught heresy from the pulpit--that one does not receive the beatific vision until the Second Coming (only to recant on deathbed).
Unfaithfulness is a human characteristic; Francis has not exercised the charism of infallibility in any capacity, and if he were to exercise it in a way that contradicted established doctrine, it would be null and void. Then the Bishops would need to handle the situation of re-electing a pope who had already deposed himself through the crime of heresy. I'm lumping you in the same response because it fits both. Your responses are kneejerk reactions and, I don't mean to offend by this, uneducated.
Jace Barnes
this
Aaron Mitchell
The masons are openly recruiting on Facebook in my state. I really doubt they are more than a drinking club.
Aiden Nelson
what is grand orient freemasonry
Owen Carter
>Jesus lied. Perhaps. Another possibility is that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church, and the interpretation of the passage on which they based their authority was incorrect. In particular, consider this:
What is the Church? The word that is translated into English as "church" is ἐkkλησία (ekklesia) in the original Greek, which means "the called out ones" or "the assembly of the called out ones", it does not mean your man-made Papist institution. Who are "the called out ones"? Right after Simon Peter's confession, Jesus declares to him that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 16:17), and similarly during the Bread of Life discourse, Jesus says: >No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn. 6:44) So "the called out ones" are the ones that God has drawn to confess that Jesus is Lord and these are the ones who will have eternal life: >because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Rom. 10:9-19) What are the "gates of hell" (Mt. 16:18)? In the original Greek this phrase appears as πύλαι ᾅδου (pylai hadou), which more accurately translates as the "gates of Hades", that is the "gates of death". So the Rock is Jesus, and the faith and confession that he is "the Christ, the Son of the living God", which is only possible for those whom God the Father has called out and drawn to himself ("the church"), and against these the "gates of death" will not prevail, that is, they will have eternal life.
Grayson Nguyen
That's most of them, but mainly it perpetuates the revolutionary spirit of liberalism. It's a replacement religion for Christianity in every sense. books.google.com/books?id=QWGHOHr7yvYC&vq=10 commandment&pg=PA17#v=snippet&q=commandments&f=false Page 17, even have their own replacement 10 commandments... and even the "greatest commandment". Christ gave the "greatest commandment" which was to love God, and to love your neighbor. Masons, being a Gnostic cult of man, excludes the love of God and merely settles for the brotherhood of man.
Parker Fisher
>Has the Church failed? Has the sacrifice of the Mass ended? Yes, the Roman Catholic Church has utterly failed. The "Sacrifice of the Mass" is not something that appears in the Bible, it's something the Roman Catholics made up under the authority of the Pope. But since we now know with absolute certainty that the Pope does not and never had any authority, this also means that all the teachings unique to Roman Catholicism are now definitively and conclusively shown to be false.
Caleb Reyes
Malachi 1:11 prophecies the sacrifice of Holy Mass, saying >For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. During this time, His name was not great among the Gentiles, and there was only one place where sacrifice could take place--the Temple in Jerusalem. Even then, it wasn't a clean oblation. It required an unblemished sacrificial animal, but was still impure.
Christ's sacrifice, on the other hand, is eternally offered to the Father and made present each day for us in our present time so that we may unite ourselves to His sacrifice, daily. >Apocalypse 5:6 >And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. Even after Christ's rise from the dead and Ascension into heaven, He was seen as a "slain Lamb." His sacrifice was once and for all--an eternal sacrifice which is constantly made present on our altars for the remission of sins.
This is why Holy Mass and the Eucharist has been the main object of contention with Satan and his unwitting cohorts; the Gnostics, the Mahometans, the Protestants, even the modern Satanists require a consecrated Host [Greek: hostia, meaning victim].
Joshua Morgan
Vatican II wasn't that big of a deal, and having mass in languages that people can understand is not only a good thing, but in line with what Christ would have wanted for his church. The gatherings immediately following Christ's death and resurrection were conducted in languages familiar to the congregation. There's no reason to hold mass in Latin, and Latin wasn't even the principle language spoken by the apostles.
Why are there so many Catholics on this board who think we care about the latest ecumenical council? We (or I at least) care that the church has literally been infiltrated by satanic pedophiles, but I don't give a fuck about minor aesthetic changes that happened 50 years ago. I don't see how boy-fucking homos and Vatican II are necessarily correlated.
Tyler Gonzalez
These are Roman Catholic interpretations of these passages coming from the teaching authority of the Pope. We now know that the Pope does not actually have infallible teaching authority, so all the Roman Catholic interpretations of the Bible are worthless.
Hudson Johnson
We know that when God changes the names of people, their mission and purpose changes. We saw that with Abram, with Jacob, and with Saul, to name a few. This is precisely the exact same thing that occurred in Matthew 16:18. To say that Jesus did not found the Church on Peter is to call into question the good grammar and common sense of Our Lord. Jesus tells Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." He changes his name to Peter (Kephas), and then refers to him as the rock, which is what his name means.
Take a look at Isaiah 22. In Isaiah 22, the prophet is condemning one successor of the prime minister to the kingdom of David, and replacing him with another successor. In Isaiah 22:22 he says in prophetic language of the new successor, "... what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." This is precisely the language that Jesus uses in Matthew 16:19 when He says, " I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. " These Apostles, who were Jews absolutely understood the reference to Isaiah. Jesus was instituting His new kingdom: Jesus as the King, and Peter as the prime minister, who acted in the authority of the King when the King was out to battle or diplomacy--or in Jesus' case, ascended to Heaven.
Peter had primacy over the other Apostles: Peter's name is always mentioned first in the list of Apostles (Mt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:14), even when Peter wasn't the first in age or in priority of election to apostle. Peter is the first apostle who performs a miracle (Acts 3). Peter is the first to address the Jews in Jerusalem, upon which he converts three thousand souls. (Acts 2) Peter is the first to convert from the Gentiles in the persons of Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10). When there is question of electing a successor to Judas, Peter alone speaks (Acts 1).
St. James was one of the three most favored Apostles. He was the cousin of Our Lord and brother of St. John. He was most dear to the faithful--yet no extraordinary efforts are made by the faithful to rescue him from death when Herod threw him into prison. Peter is imprisoned about the same time. The entire Church is aroused. Prayers for his deliverance ascend to heaven, not only from Jerusalem, but also from every Christian family in the land (Acts 12).
Then please, by all means, throw away your New Testament. It was canonized by the authority of the pope in 382 at the Council of Rome, reaffirmed in 393 at the Synod of Hippo, and again in 419 at the Council of Carthage. Make up your own scriptures like the Mormons.
Angel Johnson
>He changes his name to Peter (Kephas) This is false. He doesn't change his name, he gives him a surname, so his name becomes "Simon Peter" and not just "Peter".
Why did Jesus surname Simon "Peter"? A common misconception is that Jesus gave this name to Simon Peter right after his confession that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt. 16:16), but actually Jesus gave him this name without explanation at their first meeting: >He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). (Jn. 1:42) Only after Simon Peter's confession does Jesus reveal why he gave him this name: >Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter" (Mt. 16:17-18) In Aramaic/Hebrew, Simon is a name meaning "hear/listen", so by adding Cephas/Peter to it (which means "rock"), Simon Peter's name takes on the meaning "heard the Rock", that is "heard God" (in the Old Testament the Rock is one of the names for God). So when Jesus goes on to say: >"and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt. 16:18) He is referring to God (himself) as the foundation for his Church.
Gabriel Walker
The New Testament existed and was universally in use among Christians long before the Roman Catholic Church canonized it. In case it isn't clear to you, "canonized" does not mean "written by". It means the Roman Catholics at that point decided to adopt for themselves the New Testament that was already in use.
Carter Torres
Oh I see, so after he gives him the name Cephas, or Kephas (the masculine for rock), he tells him in Matthew 16:19 >And I will give to THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Who received the keys? Did Christ say "and I give the keys to MYSELF"? No, he gave them to Peter. Why? Because he is the temporary earthly head of the Church.
These objections have been answers ad nauseum for five hundred years. You aren't spewing anything new. Please, toss out your New Testament and find your own scriptures to consider authoritative. You only know the New Testament is inspired because the Catholic Church set them in canon for all time. Before the canon was set, some communities held the Gospel of Magdalene inspired, some rejected John's Apocalypse, some held the Acts of Peter, on and on. Until the Church came together under the authority of the Bishop of Rome and set the canon for all time, there was no complete consensus.
Jackson Edwards
I'm off to spend time with the wife. Enjoy finding yourself strip-mall sect, a successor of Target at the Ancient See of Shopmore.
Julian Barnes
Time to tax religions. Can't keep people from practicing a religion but we can tax them out of existence, out of our country legally.
